January 22, 2024

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster for six blogs. He has many videos on YouTube.

This is my 67th refutation of Banzoli’s writings. From 25 May until 12 November 2022 he wrote not one single word in reply, claiming that my articles were “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and that “only a severely cognitively impaired person” would take them “seriously.” Nevertheless, he found them so “entertaining” that after almost six months of inaction he resolved to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.” But apparently he changed his mind again, since he has replied to me only 16 times (the last one dated 2-20-23).

Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. His words will be in blue.

*****

I received notice that someone made a comment in a Banzoli thread underneath one of his last replies to me. One of his followers (anonymous, of course), wrote on 1-20-24:

Luke, I was recently accused of heresy by a person who came to me with the following quote from “Luther”: “Whoever does not believe as I do is destined for hell. My doctrine and God’s doctrine are the same. My judgment is the judgment of God.” I couldn’t respond because I couldn’t even find where this citizen got that line from; I think it came from the head of some priest out there. Anyway, I would like to know if it is true (I highly doubt it) and where it came from.

[Portugese: Lucas, recentemente fui acusada de heresia por uma pessoa que me veio com a seguinte citação de “Lutero”: “Quem não crê como eu é destinado ao inferno. Minha doutrina e a doutrina de Deus são a mesma. Meu juízo é o juízo de Deus.” Não consegui rebater pois não pude nem encontrar de onde esse cidadão tirou essa fala; acho que foi da cabeça de algum padre por aí. Enfim, gostaria de saber se ela é verdadeira mesmo (duvido muito) e de onde saiu.]

And this was Banzoli’s reply (1-22-24):

I asked three AI’s (Chat GPT, Bard and Copilot) about the veracity of this quote and all three said the quote is false. On Google, this quote only exists on Catholic blogs, so it must be false. In any case, regarding Catholic accusations against Luther, I recommend the table at the end of the article below, with an index of refutations to the papist slanders against Luther: [then he linked to articles from James Swan, the Great Luther Defender, whom I have refuted innumerable times since 2003: see his entry on my Anti-Catholicism page]

[Portugese: Eu perguntei sobre a veracidade dessa citação a três IA (Chat GPT, Bard e Copilot) e os três disseram que a citação é falsa. No Google essa citação só existe em blogs católicos, então deve ser falsa mesmo. De todo modo, sobre acusações católicas contra Lutero eu recomendo a tabela presente ao final do artigo abaixo, com um índice de refutações às calúnias papistas contra Lutero:]

Now I shall document that all three sentences were indeed written by Martin Luther, and that the quotation is absolutely authentic (the portion in question is highlighted in green and bolded, and similarly outrageous statements highlighted in purple and bolded):

I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven – to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world – I Pet. 3:15. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be savedfor it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s. (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called [July 1522]. From: Luther’s Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan [vols. 1-30] and Helmut T. Lehmann [vols. 31-55], St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House [vols. 1-30]; Philadelphia: Fortress Press [vols. 31-55], 1955. This work is from Vol. 39: Church and Ministry I [edited by J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann]; pages 239-299; translated by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch; citation above from pp. 248-249) 

This is, of course, the standard edition of Luther’s writings in English, and of impeccable authority. If this is not an authentic Luther quotation, then nothing is. I have the entire 55-volume set in hardcover on a shelf in my living room. If Banzoli wishes to challenge the citation (which would be foolish, but what else is new from him?), I would note that his hero James Swan cited the same words from the same source in a long article about it (dated 9-14-11).

As always, he put his usual ultra-biased slant on it and made out that it’s perfectly fine and dandy that Luther wrote this and Catholics are unregenerate dumbbells, etc. ad nauseam. It’s all in the noble cause against Rome, you see, so anything goes. One can also observe a snippet online of the very citation in question from Google Books. Seeing is believing!

What is great fun and hilarious, however (who said apologetics was boring and humorless!?), is how Banzoli’s lackey casually assumes that Luther couldn’t possibly have expressed such sentiments. He pretended that they weren’t from Luther at all (even putting “Luther” in quotation marks, as if the whole thing were entirely imaginary). He opined and pontificated that “it came from the head of some priest” and “highly doubt[s]” that it is “true.” Is this not delightfully and deliciously entertaining? I love it!

Even funnier (and highly revealing) is Banzoli’s response (the big “expert”). Not realizing that there are always various translations from works 500 years old, originally in Latin or German, and translated many times, he does a stupid AI search (probably lasting a minute) and concludes that the “quote only exists on Catholic blogs, so it must be false.” Then he strongly insinuates that it is but one of many false “Catholic accusations” and “papist slanders against Luther.” He cites James Swan for a catalogue of these things, but the ultimate irony and belly laugh in all this is that Swan himself (hardly a “Catholic blog”) verifies that Luther did write these words, and he cites them at length.

The undeniable conclusion that we must necessarily arrive at is that as a result of this farce is that Lucas Banzoli was 1) blissfully ignorant, 2) ultra-biased and prejudiced against Catholics, and 3) unable to properly run down a purported citation (now proven to be authentic) of Martin Luther. It’s pathetic and pitiful; a disgrace, coming from someone with his education (Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history!). I, on the other hand, knew of this quotation at least twenty years ago, and possibly over thirty years ago, because the first thing I did as a Catholic convert was extensive research on Martin Luther from a Catholic perspective (an “other side” view that Protestants — like I used to be –, virtually never see).

My own article that I grabbed the above lengthy quotation from was originally uploaded on 13 November 2002. The last revision was made on 18 June 2006, so even if the quotation in question was added in its current form then, I have had it online on my blog, including extensive context, for at least seventeen years.

Banzoli should have come to me for the answer . . . But now he has embarrassed himself for the 59th time. Live and learn, huh? But one must be willing to learn.

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: Portrait of Martin Luther (1528), by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist Lucas Banzoli stated that a quotation from Luther was “false” & a “papist slander.” I proved its authenticity from a standard source.

March 23, 2023

An Opportunity to Dismantle 24 Garden Variety Anti-Catholic Whoppers in One Article

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster for six blogs. He has many videos on YouTube.

This is my 66th refutation of Banzoli’s writings. From 25 May until 12 November 2022 he wrote not one single word in reply, claiming that my articles were “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and that “only a severely cognitively impaired person” would take them “seriously.” Nevertheless, he found them so “entertaining” that after almost six months of inaction he resolved to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.”

He has now replied to me 16 times (the last one dated 2-20-23). I disposed of the main themes of his numberless slanders in several Facebook posts under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page (where all my replies to him are listed). I shall try, by God’s grace, to ignore his innumerable insults henceforth, and heartily thank him for all these blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).

Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. I use the RSV for both my Bible citations and Banzoli’s. His words will be in blue.

*****

This is a reply to Lucas Banzoli’s article, “A Bíblia dos sonhos dos católicos” [The Catholic Dream Bible] (10-18-13).

Here, Banzoli engages in a very poor attempt at satire or sarcasm. Such humor involves exaggerating for effect and a non-literal presentation (I’ve done them many times, and love satire). Effective, well-done satire, however, has to be grounded in the truth. Enough truth has to be presented for the satire to “take” and “work.” Otherwise, it’s simply slanderous misrepresentation. And of course Banzoli’s pathetic display is wholly of the latter sort. He doesn’t know enough about Catholicism (i.e., its true nature) to be able to satirize it. First things first. He’s ignorant and misinformed (and I dare say, not immune to deliberate lying, either). Having refuted him now 65 times, I can speak to such things from firsthand knowledge. So he ends up warring against straw men of his own making.

This article of his offers a golden opportunity to prove that this is the case: over and over again. He submits “Bible passages” that he thinks are what Catholics believe or how they would rewrite the Bible if they could. But in each case it’s a lie. Nowhere are his distortions and sophistries more evident. I will present each passage as it appears (RSV), then give Banzoli’s “Catholic Dream Bible” so-called speculation about what Catholics would supposedly love for each Bible verse to say. Then I will present actual authoritative Catholic teaching, to illustrate how Banzoli is engaged in his own pipe-dreams and fanciful imagination: what amounts to an ongoing lie.

I’m tired of these Protestants who are persecuting the Catholic Church, the only Church of Christ, saying that their doctrines are nowhere in the Bible. If you Catholics are tired of this gratuitous accusation, of saying that the Roman Church is an apostate church just because its doctrines have nothing in common with the Bible, and that it contradicts, misrepresents and distorts it, the time has come to present the most new “biblical” version that will revolutionize the world of debates, so that no Catholic can be refuted by any evangelical, on any topic or biblical passage. Now, when one of these “heretics” and “sons of Luther” asks “where is it in the Bible?”, you no longer need to invent an “oral tradition” or despise the Bible. Just quote these verses from the BSC (“Bible of Catholic Dreams”/ “Bíblia dos Sonhos dos Católicos”). Below are some verses translated by BSC theologians, bishops and scholars:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

BSC: “For God so loved the world, that he gave us Mary, our Advocate, Help, Intercessor, Protector, Mediatrix, Mother of the Church, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven and Supplicant Almighty in Heaven, so that whoever believes in her may not perish, but have the rosary”

The passage is entirely about Jesus, and says nothing about Mary. For Banzoli to imply that Catholics would twist and distort such a passage, making it all about Mary, is simply equal parts ludicrous and laughable. In fact, the following is what the Catholic Church actually teaches about Mary, in relation to her Son, in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), from the Second Vatican Council (21 November 1964), chapter VIII:

60. There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, “for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all”. The maternal duty of Mary toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power. For all the salvific influence of the Blessed Virgin on men originates, not from some inner necessity, but from the divine pleasure. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. In no way does it impede, but rather does it foster the immediate union of the faithful with Christ.

62. This maternity of Mary in the order of grace . . . is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.

For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. Just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to His creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.

The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary.

67. . . . the duties and privileges of the Blessed Virgin . . . always look to Christ, the source of all truth, sanctity and piety.

This essential subordination to Jesus Christ is repeatedly taught and stressed even in the Catholic work that anti-Catholics love the most (because of what they falsely believe it teaches): The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonus de Liguori. All excerpts below are taken from The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus de Liguori — a Doctor of the Catholic Church –, edited by Rev. Eugene Grimm, Two Volumes in One, Fourth Reprint Revised, Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, 1931:

And now, to say all in a few words: God, to glorify the Mother of the Redeemer, has so determined and disposed that of her great charity she should intercede on behalf of all those for whom his divine Son paid and offered the superabundant price of his precious blood in which alone is our salvation, life, and resurrection.

On this doctrine, and on all that is in accordance with it, I ground my propositions . . . the plenitude of all grace which is in Christ as the Head, from which it flows, as from its source; and in Mary, as in the neck through which it flows. (p. 26)

The very analogies and language make it impossible for Mary to be “above God.” God “determined” that she would intercede for those “blood-bought” by Jesus’ death on the cross, in Whose precious blood “alone is our salvation.” The grace flows from the “Head,” Jesus, through the neck, Mary. A neck is not a head. The Body of Christ has one divine Head, Jesus. A neck is under a head, and it isn’t the control center, so to speak. Etc., etc. It is clearer than the sun at high noon on a clear day that Mary cannot be equal to God at all in this scenario. She is merely a creature and a vessel, albeit highly exalted and venerated and honored. Every prophet served the same function to a lesser degree. St. Paul played a profound role in salvation and Church history. That doesn’t make him God. Nor is Mary God. Catholics know this, but our critics oftentimes don’t “get” it.

[I]t is one thing to say that God cannot, and another that he will not, grant graces without the intercession of Mary. We willingly admit that God is the source of every good, and the absolute master of all graces; and that Mary is only a pure creature, who receives whatever she obtains as a pure favor from God . . . We most readily admit that Jesus Christ is the only Mediator of justice . . . and that by his merits he obtains us all graces and salvation; but we say that Mary is the mediatress of grace; and that receiving all she obtains through Jesus Christ, and because she prays and asks for it in the name of Jesus Christ . . . (pp. 156-157)

[W]hen these saints and authors tell us in such terms that all graces come to us through Mary, they do not simply mean to say that we “received Jesus Christ, the source of every good, through Mary,” as the before-named writer pretends; but that they assure us that God, who gave us Jesus Christ, wills that all graces that have been, that are, and will be dispensed to men to the end of the world through the merits of Christ, should be dispensed by the hands and through the intercession of Mary . . . [this is] necessary, . . . not with an absolute necessity; for the mediation of Christ alone is absolutely necessary; but with a moral necessity . . . (p. 162)

Jesus now in heaven sits at the right hand of the Father . . . He has supreme dominion over all, and also over Mary . . . (p. 179)

“Be comforted, O unfortunate soul, who hast lost thy God,” says St. Bernard; “thy Lord himself has provided thee with a mediator, and this is his Son Jesus, who can obtain for thee all that thou desirest. He has given thee Jesus for a mediator; and what is there that such a son cannot obtain from the Father?”

If your fear arises from having offended God, know that Jesus has fastened all your sins on the cross with his own lacerated hands, and having satisfied divine justice for them by his death, he has already effaced them from your souls . . . ” . . . What do you fear, O ye of little faith? . . . But if by chance,” adds the saint, “thou fearest to have recourse to Jesus Christ because the majesty of God in him overawes thee — for though he became man, he did not cease to be God — and thou desirest another advocate with this divine mediator, go to Mary, for she will intercede for thee with the Son, who will most certainly hear her; and then he will intercede with the Father, who can deny nothing to such a son.” (pp. 200-201)

[For much more on this, see: St. Alphonsus de Liguori: Mary-Worshiper & Idolater? (8-9-02)]

***

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

BSC: For there is one God and several mediators between God and men, like Mary, the angels and all the saints, including Jesus.

The Catholic Church agrees that there is one unique, preeminent, super-abundant mediator, Jesus Christ, per 1 Timothy 2:5, and as reiterated in Lumen Gentium, 60 (see above). At the same time, God desires to utilize human beings in accomplishing His purposes, so that we often function as “mini-mediators” in an entirely secondary, essentially lesser fashion (intercessory prayer is the most immediate and obvious manifestation of this). This is true even regarding salvation and distribution of grace, according to many biblical passages: particularly from St. Paul. As for grace, he refers to “the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you” (Eph 3:2), and states that good, edifying words can “impart grace to those who hear” (Eph 4:29), and that he and his helpers were “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4:1). St. Peter adds that all serious Christians are potentially “stewards of God’s varied grace” (1 Pet 4:10). If all Christians can do this, clearly, so can Mary, if God so wills it.

St. Paul teaches many times, in many different ways that believers help to save people as well. Paul said that he could “save some of” his fellow Jews (Rom 11:14), and that God, “through” his preaching, would “save those who believe” (1 Cor 1:21), that he was God’s servant “through whom” people “believed” (1 Cor 3:5), that spouses could “save” each other (1 Cor 7:16). He was willing to “become all things to all men, that” he “might by all means save some” (1 Cor 9:22); he’s “afflicted” for the sake of others’ “salvation” (2 Cor 1:6); he says that “I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation” (2 Tim 2:10). James likewise states that “whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul” (Jas 5:20); and Peter observes that some husbands “may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives” (1 Pet 3:1). So the notion that Mary also helps save people (even if it is all people, as a worker with God: see the next section) is also totally in line with the above passages.

God is so interested in working directly with human beings, to save souls and impart His grace, that Scripture refers to a profound joint working relationship several times: “the Lord worked with them” (Mk 16:20), “we are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9), “I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me” (1 Cor 15:10), “always abounding in the work of the Lord” (1 Cor 15:58), “we are ambassadors for Christ” (2 Cor 5:20), “Working together with him” (2 Cor 6:1), “it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20), “for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:13). Mary is one of those who does this, as the mother of God the Son; God in the flesh (a thing only one human being has ever done).

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

BSC: Jesus said to them: Rome is the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through her.

Whether one is saved through the Church or not (as a secondary agent of God) is a separate question from the fact that we are ultimately saved by the redeeming blood of Christ and by His sacrifice on the cross. No one denies that. As to the necessity of the Church (whatever it is construed to be), for salvation, that’s not solely a “Catholic” thing at all. John Calvin (no lover of the Catholic Church), taught it many times:

[T]here is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels (Mt. 22:30). For our weakness does not permit us to leave the school until we have spent our whole lives as scholars. Moreover, beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for, as Isaiah and Joel testify (Isa. 37:32; Joel 2:32). . . . the abandonment of the Church is always fatal. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV, 1:4)

The knowledge of his body, inasmuch as he knew it to be more necessary for our salvation, he has made known to us by surer marks. (IV, 1:8)

God has been pleased to preserve the pure preaching of his word by her instrumentality, . . . while he feeds us with spiritual nourishment, and provides whatever is conducive to our salvation. (IV, 1:10)

Accordingly, in the Creed forgiveness of sins is appropriately subjoined to belief as to the Church, because none obtain forgiveness but those who are citizens, and of the household of the Church, as we read in the Prophet (Is. 33:24). The first place, therefore, should be given to the building of the heavenly Jerusalem, in which God afterwards is pleased to wipe away the iniquity of all who betake themselves to it. I say, however, that the Church must first be built; not that there can be any church without forgiveness of sins, but because the Lord has not promised his mercy save in the communion of saints. (IV, 1:20)

Three things are here to be observed. First, Whatever be the holiness which the children of God possess, it is always under the condition, that so long as they dwell in a mortal body, they cannot stand before God without forgiveness of sins. Secondly, This benefit is so peculiar to the Church, that we cannot enjoy it unless we continue in the communion of the Church. Thirdly, It is dispensed to us by the ministers and pastors of the Church, either in the preaching of the Gospel or the administration of the Sacraments, and herein is especially manifested the power of the keys, which the Lord has bestowed on the company of the faithful. Accordingly, let each of us consider it to be his duty to seek forgiveness of sins only where the Lord has placed it. Of the public reconciliation which relates to discipline, we shall speak at the proper place. (IV, 1:22)

The question then becomes, “what is the Church; where is it found”? That’s a huge discussion itself, and (trust me) Protestants are in no good position to provide a feasible alternative to the Catholic Church (being hopelessly split amongst themselves). But the Church as a means of salvation is biblical teaching, which is why Calvin holds to it as strongly as Catholics do.

Mark 10:42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.

BSC: You know that those who are rulers of nations dominate them, and important people exercise power over them. And so it will be with you, who will be led by Peter, the Supreme Pontiff, Prince of the Apostles, Head of the Church, Head of Christians, Universal Bishop and Bishop of Bishops.

I guess it’s because the Christian Church was to have no leader — so Banzoli absurdly pontificates — explains why Peter alone was told by Jesus that he was the rock upon which He would build His Church (Mt 16:18), why He gave Peter alone the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 16:19), why Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7), and why the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) and the common people (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15) thought the same, why he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36), and the one who performed the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a capital punishment (Acts 5:2-11).

It obviously explains why Cornelius was told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6), and why Peter was the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48), why Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28, 32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5), and is often spokesman for the others (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67 ff.), why Peter’s name is mentioned more than anyone else in the NT; even more than Paul (191 to 184), why he led the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41), why he was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38, 43), why Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18) . . . Yes, all of this is clearly explained by the fact that there is no leader of Christianity, according to Pope Lucas Banzoli.

1 Peter 5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed.

BSC: Therefore, I appeal to the presbyters among you, and I do so in the capacity of universal pope, of Supreme Pontiff and bishop of all bishops and witness of the sufferings of Christ…

Yes, just as Jesus (infinitely above all men, as God) called His disciples “friends” (Jn 15:15) and said that “He who receives you receives me” (Mt 10:40), and was obedient to mere creatures (“And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them”: Lk 2:51).

Hebrews 8:1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,

BSC: We have two Supreme Pontiffs: one is the earthly Pontiff, who is Peter, and the other is seated at the right hand of the throne of the divine Majesty in heaven.

As the text is about the high priest, not the pope, Banzoli’s comment is irrelevant. But it doesn’t overcome or contradict the leadership of Peter (and by extension his successors), explained above with much Scripture. The Bible teaches that Peter is a rock in one sense and that Jesus is in another.

Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sins shall die.

BSC: The soul that sins will live forever because it is immortal.

I refuted Banzoli’s heretical views on souls sleep and annihilationism in 17 parts. That Ezekiel 18:4, 20 refer to spiritual death (i.e., separation from God, not annihilation) is obvious from immediate context, too, since 18:21 declares:

But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

Since all men die physically, this must be talking about the spiritual, or “second” death. So much for this “proof” . . .

Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.

BSC: Whatever comes to your hand to do, do as you wish, because in the beyond, where you are going, there are also works and projects, there is knowledge and wisdom, prayers and intercessions for the living.

The context of 9:6 (“they have no more for ever any share in all that is done under the sun”) is crucial in order to understand and properly exegete the passage. It places the “vantage-point” of the larger passage (9:5-6, 10) as “under the sun.” The dead (at least the unrighteous dead) “know nothing” about or have any “share” in the things of the earth.

Acts 10:25-26 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. [26] But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.”

BSC: As Peter was about to enter the house, Cornelius went up to him and fell at his feet, worshiping him. And Pedro said: you did very well; after all, I’m dad.

Since the Catholic Church never teaches anywhere that any man, or anyone other than God, should be worshiped and adored, this is simply a non sequitur. I pointed this out with regard to Mary in a recent exchange with Banzoli. Here is how that went:

If in fact Catholics believed that Mary was a “goddess” then surely the term would appear in official [magisterial] Catholic documents somewhere. But of course it does not. If Lucas or any Protestant denies that, let them produce the documented evidence. “Put up or shut up!” Best wishes in that endeavor!

I never spoke of “official magisterial documents” that declare Mary a goddess. I talked about her being treated like a goddess by most Catholics, which is quite different. . . . We don’t need a paragraph in the catechism that expressly says “Mary is a goddess and we worship her”; we need only see how it is dealt with in practice, which in no way differs at all from any heathen worshiping his gods and goddesses. . . .

This is pathetic. The first rule in all apologetics is to document what a theological opponent believes, from their own words or (especially) official documents. But Banzoli is beyond all that. He has magical powers to see into the hearts of “most” Catholics who treat Mary like a “goddess”: so he says in his omniscience and infinite wisdom. By this criterion of “evidence” anyone can “prove” anything.

Banzoli can’t prove that Catholics think popes ought to be worshiped, anymore than he can prove that we think Mary should be. So the whole thing is just a scurrilous lie: one of scores from “Lyin’ Lucas” Banzoli. He obviously thinks we believe in these outlandish, blasphemous notions, or else his caricature for Acts 10:25-26 wouldn’t include a scenario of Peter, the first pope, commending Cornelius for worshiping him. Of course, we accept the actual revelation in the passage just as Protestants do (no man should ever be worshiped).

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD, that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to graven images.

BSC: I am the Lord; this is my name! But I will share my glory with Mary and the saints, and my praise with images.

God does indeed share His glory with His creatures. Banzoli is astonishingly ignorant of Holy Scripture in this regard, since I found no less than 26 passages expressly stating this very thing. God forbade making idols or images that were supposed to represent Him, because the surrounding nations worshiped idols, thinking they were real gods.

On the other hand, there were images of natural things that God Himself said He was particularly present in: the fires of the burning bush on Mt. Sinai, the pillars of smoke and fire when the Jews were wandering in the wilderness, the shekinah cloud in the temple, and the space between the two cherubim on top of the ark of the covenant, where God said He would come and meet with His people (e.g., Lev 16:2). Hence, there are passages where the Jews bowed before the ark, or stood before it, offering sacrifices and worship. Joshua did this (Josh 7:6); so did Solomon (1 Kgs 3:15; 8:5; 2 Chr 5:6), and the Levite priests (1 Chr 16:4).

This was obviously not idolatry, or else God wouldn’t have condoned or sanctioned (indeed commanded) it. No passage in the Bible states that these men shouldn’t have bowed before or offered sacrifice and worship before God, present on top of the ark.  In like fashion, a Catholic might worship Jesus while looking at an image of a crucifix. This is not worshiping the wood; he or she is worshiping god, while meditating on His great act of sacrifice and redemption on our behalf. Something similar occurs even in heaven (“I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain”: Rev 5:6).

Exodus 20:4-5 “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; [5] you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,”

BSC: You shall make carved images for yourself in the likeness of what is in heaven above, and on the earth beneath, and in the waters under the earth. You shall bow down to them and serve them.

Note that the point of the passage is that the idolaters were literally serving pieces of wood or stone (“graven images”), which they replaced the true God with. Catholics have never taught such an outrage, so this is misguided ire, as so often in anti-Catholic rantings. But God is not saying that no image whatever can be associated with Him (as shown in my previous reply): only those that are seeking to replace Him and claiming to be Him or some false god.

Matthew 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, “Begone, Satan! for it is written, `You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'”

BSC: Worship only God, but worship him with latria and with the saints.

Since we don’t worship saints, this is yet another non sequitur and straw man, and need not be addressed.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-8, 12 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. [7] For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you, [8] we did not eat any one’s bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you. . . . [12] Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work in quietness and to earn their own living.

BSC: Brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ we command you to distance yourself from every brother who lives as a Protestant and not according to the Roman tradition they received from Peter: that Mary is the Queen of Heaven and was assumed into Paradise body and soul, that there is a place of purification after death called purgatory, that the Roman Supreme Pontiff is infallible in ex cathedra and that saints must be canonized by the Church to become intercessors in Heaven.

Six things are brought up at once. This is an old anti-Catholic tactic: overwhelm Catholic opponents with a bunch of stuff at one time. As any reader can see, if we stick to one topic at a time, I am more than willing to counter all the horse crap that the anti-Catholic sophist produces (and I have written about all the topics above; inquirers only need search them on my blog). And I do so (usually) by producing 10, 20 times or more relevant Bible passages than the anti-Catholic ever comes up with — as we can readily see in my present reply –, and they usually stick to the standard “playbook” / “pet” prooftexts and or mere simplistic slogans like “faith alone” or “Scripture alone”. But I never play the “100 topics at once” game, because it’s childish. It’s not serious, adult conversation.

Matthew 15:6 So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.

BSC: So you confirm the word of God because of your tradition.

The opposite is true: we ground our doctrines in Scripture, and any apostolic traditions we hold to must also be in harmony with that same inspired Scripture. There is such a thing as true Christian traditions, and also false tradition. The Bible makes this clear. Many Protestants read the accounts of Jesus’ conflicts with the Pharisees and get the idea that He was utterly opposed to all tradition whatsoever. This is false. A close reading of passages such as Matthew 15:3-9 and Mark 7: 8-13 will reveal that He only condemned corrupt traditions of men, not tradition per se. He uses qualifying phrases like “your tradition,” “commandments of men,” “tradition of men,” as opposed to “the commandment of God.” St. Paul draws precisely the same contrast in Colossians 2:8: “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.”

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God’s true traditions). Corrupt pharisaic teachings were a bad tradition (but many of their legitimate teachings were recognized by Jesus; see, e.g., Matthew 23:3). The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is paradosis. It occurs in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages, in an entirely positive sense:

1 Corinthians 11:2 . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. (NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all use “tradition[s]”).

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6: Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

***

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Banzoli’s version with comments: “I also tell you that you are petrus [fragment of stone, masculine, second person], and on this petra [mass of rock, feminine, third person] I will build my Church…”

BSC: I also tell you that you are Peter, and on you I will build my Roman Catholic Church…

Yes, it was built on Peter as its first leader, as many very eminent Protestant scholars agree: in agreeing that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. That’s one thing; how the future Church is defined and whether there is papal / apostolic succession are separate issues that must be discussed by themselves. And of course I have written about those topics, too, in my 4,200 + articles and 51 books.

Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, [25] but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

BSC: And Joseph, waking up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took his wife; and he never met her, not even after giving birth to their only child.

The perpetual virginity was believed in by all the early leaders of Protestantism, and by many important figures for centuries after. We agree with what Martin Luther wrote:

When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. (Luther’s Works, vol. 45:212-213 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew [1523] )

And with John Calvin:

The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called “first-born”; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, vol. I, p. 107)

Francois Turretin (1623-1687), widely believed to be the greatest Calvinist theologian after Calvin, wrote, more than a hundred years later:

Nor is it derived better from this—that Joseph is said “not to have known Mary till she had brought forth her firstborn son” (Mt. 1:25). The particles “till” and “even unto” are often referred only to the past, not to the future (i.e., they so connote the preceding time, concerning which there might be a doubt or which it was of the highest importance to know, as not to have a reference to the future—cf. Gen. 28:15; Pss. 122:2; 110:1; Mt. 28:20, etc.). Thus is shown what was done by Joseph before the nativity of Christ (to wit, that he abstained from her); but it does not imply that he lived with her in any other way postpartum. When therefore she is said to have been found with child “before they came together” (prin ē synelthein autous), preceding copulation is denied, but not a subsequent affirmed.
Although copulation had not taken place in that marriage, it did not cease to be true and ratified (although unconsummated) for not intercourse, but consent makes marriage. Therefore it was perfect as to form (to wit, undivided conjunction of life and unviolated faith), but not as to end (to wit, the procreation of children, although it was not deficient as to the raising of the offspring). (Institutes of Elenctic Theology)
Once again, it’s not just a “Catholic thing.” It’s a biblical thing, and an issue upon which all Christians agreed until liberal theology started eating away at common beliefs of all Christians in the early 18th century and especially in the 19th.
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
BSC: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and cousin of James, and Joseph, and Judas, and Simon? And are not your cousins here with us? And they were scandalized by him.
*
Yes, we do have rather strong biblical evidence that at least two of these named men were Jesus’ cousins. We have no absolute proof that they were His blood brothers or siblings. Here is a brief summary of the biblical evidence that can be brought to bear on this topic:

1) In comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph (mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus’ “brothers”) are the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called the Blessed Virgin Mary’s adelphe in John 19:25. Assuming that there are not two women named “Mary” in one family, this usage apparently means “cousin” or more distant relative. Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and “sisters” along with James and Joseph, calling all adelphoi. The most plausible interpretation of all this related data is a use of adelphos as “cousins” (or possibly, step-brothers) rather than “siblings.” We know for sure, from the above information, that James and Joseph were not Jesus’ siblings. . . .

2) Jude is called the Lord’s “brother” in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. If this is the same Jude who wrote the epistle bearing that name (as many think), he calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Now, suppose for a moment that he was Jesus’ blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as the Lord’s own sibling (while we are told that such a phraseology occurs several times in the New Testament, referring to a sibling relationship) and chooses instead to identify himself as James‘ brother.  This is far too strange and implausible to believe. Moreover, James also refrains from calling himself Jesus’ brother, in his epistle (James 1:1: “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”): even though St. Paul calls him “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19).

3) Luke 2:41-51 describes Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the temple at the age of twelve, for the required observance of Passover. Everyone agrees that He was the first child of Mary, so if there were up to five or more siblings, as some maintain (or even one), why is there no hint of them at all in this account? I recently wrote in-depth about this. If Jesus had brothers or sisters and He was the oldest, then He certainly would have had siblings at 12 years old, when His parents took Him to Jerusalem for the Passover (Luke 2:41-50) — particularly since Mary was estimated to have been around 16 at His birth, which would make her still only around 28 at this time. We’re to believe that it makes sense that she bore her first child at 16 and then had no more from 16-28, and then more than four after that? That’s not very plausible at all.

4) Nowhere does the New Testament state that any of Jesus’ “brothers” (adelphoi) are the children of Jesus’ mother Mary, even when they are referenced together (cf. Mark 3:31 ff.; 6:3 ff.; John 2:12; Acts 1:14). So for example, in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55. Jesus is called “the son of Mary” and “the carpenter’s son” and only He is referred to in this way. The others (four “brothers” named in each passage) are not. It happens again in the book of Acts:

Acts 1:14  All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers

See how a distinction is made between Mary as the mother of Jesus and “his brothers,” who are not called Mary’s sons? Nor is she called their mother. These verses do not read in a “siblings” way.

5) In the New Testament, none of these “brothers” are ever called Joseph’s children, anywhere, either.

***

1 John 1:7 but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
BSC: But if we walk in the light, as he is, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from some sins, others will be purged in purgatory.
*
1 John 1:7 is, of course, true, and Catholics agree with it like anyone else. It’s not a denial of 1 John 1:7 to also believe in purgatory, which is simply one form of the cleansing that is a result of Jesus’ death on the cross. The principles underlying our belief in purgatory are all over the Bible. I have found 50 such passages. I’ve often used what I call the “nutshell” argument for purgatory: we must be without sin to enter into God’s presence (Eph 5:5; Heb 12:14; Rev 21:27; 22:3, 14-15). Therefore, God must purge or wash away our sin to make us fit to be in heaven with Him. All agree so far. The only disagreement is whether this “divine cleansing” takes place in an instant or is more of a process. It’s merely a quantitative difference; not an essential one. Purgatory is indicated most directly in 1 Corinthians 3:13, 15:

Each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. . . . [15] If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

The Bible also often refers to this same purging process taking place before we die: the very common biblical theme of God’s chastising or purifying His people. By analogy, this shows us the same notions that lie behind the apostolic and Catholic doctrine of purgatory (methods of how God works, so to speak). Scripture refers to a purging fire (in addition to 1 Corinthians 3 above): whatever “shall pass through the fire” will be made “clean” (Num 31:23); “Out of heaven he let you hear his voice, that he might discipline you; and on earth he let you see his great fire, and you heard his words out of the midst of the fire” (Dt 4:36); “we went through fire” (Ps 66:12); “For gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation” (Sir 2:5); “our God is a consuming fire” (Heb 12:29); “do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you” (1 Pet 4:12); We also see passages about the “baptism of fire” (Mt 3:11; Mk 10:38-39; Lk 3:16; 12:50).

The Bible makes frequent use also of the metaphor of various metals being refined (in a fire): “when he has tried me, I shall come forth as gold” (Job 23:10); “thou, O God, hast tested us; thou hast tried us as silver is tried” (Ps 66:10); “The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the LORD tries hearts” (Prov 17:3); “I will turn my hand against you and will smelt away your dross as with lye and remove all your alloy” (Is 1:25); “I have refined you, . . . I have tried you in the furnace of affliction” (Is 48:10); “I will refine them and test them” (Jer 9:7); “I will put this third into the fire, and refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested” (Zech 13:9);  “he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap; he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them like gold and silver” (Mal 3:2-3); “Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good, because God tested them and found them worthy of himself; [6] like gold in the furnace he tried them, . . . “ (Wis 3:5-6); “. . . your faith, more precious than gold which though perishable is tested by fire” (1 Pet 1:6-7).

God cleansing or washing us is another common biblical theme: “Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! . . . Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean” (Ps 51:2, 7); “Blows that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost parts” (Prov 20:30; cf. 30:12); “the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning” (Is 4:4);  “I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me” (Jer 33:8); “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses” (Ezek 36:25); “cleanse them from sin and uncleanness” (Zech 13:1);  “our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb 10:22); “he was cleansed from his old sins” (2 Pet 1:9); “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).

Divine “chastisement” is taught clearly in many passages:  “as a man disciplines his son, the LORD your God disciplines you” (Dt 8:5); “do not despise the LORD’s discipline or be weary of his reproof,” (Prov 3:11); “I will chasten you in just measure” (Jer 30:11); “For thou didst test them as a father does in warning” (Wis 11:10); “God who tests our hearts” (1 Thess 2:4); “For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives. It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? . . . he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness” (Heb 12:6-7, 10).

We are subject to God’s indignation or wrath, insofar as we sin: “God will bring every deed into judgment” (Ecc 12:14); “I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him, . . . He will bring me forth to the light” (Mic 7:9).

With Banzoli, we get one snide remark with no biblical argumentation whatsoever. With me, readers can mull over some fifty passages having to do with the topic. Who’s more “biblical”?

Romans 3:23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

BSC: Because all except Mary have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
*
The word for “all” here, in Greek (pas) can indeed have different meanings: as it does in English. It matters not if it means literally “every single one” in some places, if it can mean something less than “absolutely every” elsewhere in Scripture. As soon as this is admitted, then the Catholic exception for Mary cannot be said to be linguistically or exegetically impossible. As another example in the same book, Paul writes that “all Israel will be saved,” (11:26), but we know that many will not be saved. And in 15:14, Paul describes members of the Roman church as “filled with all knowledge” (cf. 1 Cor 1:5 in KJV), which clearly cannot be taken literally. Examples could be multiplied indefinitely.

We see Jewish idiom and hyperbole in passages of similar meaning. Jesus says: “No one is good but God alone” (Lk 18:19; cf. Mt 19:17). Yet He also said: “The good person brings good things out of a good treasure.” (Mt 12:35; cf. 5:45; 7:17-20; 22:10). Furthermore, in each instance in Matthew and Luke above of the English “good” the Greek word is the same: agatho.

Is this a contradiction? Of course not. Jesus is merely drawing a contrast between our righteousness and God’s, but He doesn’t deny that we can be “good” in a lesser sense. We observe the same dynamic in the Psalms:

Psalm 14:2-3 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. [3] They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, [Hebrew, tob] no not one. (cf. 53:1-3; Paul cites this in Rom 3:10-12)

Yet in the immediately preceding Psalm, David proclaims, “I have trusted in thy steadfast love” (13:5), which certainly is “seeking” after God! And in the very next he refers to “He who walk blamelessly, and does what is right” (15:2). Even two verses later (14:5) he writes that “God is with the generation of the righteous.” So obviously his lament in 14:2-3 is an indignant hyperbole and not intended as a literal utterance.

Such remarks are common to Hebrew poetic idiom. The anonymous psalmist in 112:5-6 refers to the “righteous” (Heb. tob), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly: using the words “righteous” or “good” (11:23; 12:2; 13:22; 14:14, 19), using the same word, tob, which appears in Psalm 14:2-3. References to righteous men are innumerable (e.g., Job 17:9; 22:19; Ps 5:12; 32:11; 34:15; 37:16, 32; Mt 9:13; 13:17; 25:37, 46; Rom 5:19; Heb 11:4; Jas 5:16; 1 Pet 3:12; 4:18, etc.).

One might also note 1 Corinthians 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” As far as physical death is concerned (the context of 1 Cor 15), not “all” people have died (e.g., Enoch: Gen 5:24; cf. Heb 11:5; Elijah: 2 Kings 2:11). Likewise, “all” will not be made spiritually alive by Christ, as some will choose to suffer eternal spiritual death in hell. The key in all this is to understand biblical language properly in context. It’s not always literal.

Revelation 5:2-5 and I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” [3] And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, [4] and I wept much that no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to into into it. [5] Then one of the elders said to me, “Weep not; lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”

BSC: I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice, ‘Who is worthy to break the seals and open the book?’ But there was someone in heaven who was worthy to open the book and look into it. And I was very happy, because someone worthy of opening the book and looking at it was found: the Queen of Heaven. Then one of the elders said to me: ‘In addition to the Queen of Heaven, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah is also worthy to open the book and its seven seals’.

More absurdity. Of course, Mary has nothing to do with this passage, and the Catholic Church never said that she did. Jesus, being God, and therefore, intrinsically sinless and eternally existent, as well as the Messiah, is the One to open this scroll. Mary is a mere creature and would have fallen into sin like the rest of us, had God not chosen to give her a special grace at her conception (and I give several biblical arguments for the Immaculate Conception on my Blessed Virgin Mary web page). Besides all that, the scroll with seven seals had to do with judgment and divine wrath, as the next chapter shows. Since Jesus plays the key role in executing judgment on the earth in the Last Days, He (either literally or symbolically) opens the scroll that initiates the events. Created human beings don’t judge the earth and its people.

Galatians 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

BSC: As we have already said, now I repeat: If anyone announces to you a gospel that goes beyond what they have already received, and says that it is in accordance with tradition, be blessed!

The problem here (quite ironically) is that Protestants, distressingly often, don’t utilize plainly biblical definitions of doctrines or the gospel. Rather, they apply their own extrabiblical traditions to define the gospel, which then exclude Catholics. But the biblical definition is quite clear. It’s very curious to me that so many Protestants want to define the gospel in the strict sense of “justification by faith alone,” when the Bible itself is very explicit and clear that this is not the case at all.

For example, we know what the gospel is because we have a record of the apostles preaching it immediately after Pentecost. St. Peter’s first sermon in the upper room (Acts 2:22-40) is certainly the gospel, especially since 3000 people became Christians upon hearing it (2:41)! In it he utters not a word about “faith alone.” He instructs the hearers, rather, to “repent, and be baptized . . . so that your sins may be forgiven” (2:38), and he even tells them to “save yourselves” (2:40). So, immediately after Jesus’ resurrection, at the very outset of the “Church Age,” an apostle teaches sacramentalism and baptismal regeneration: anathema to most evangelicals, and participating in the salvation process by saving ourselves (which a great many Protestants would be most uncomfortable with, even though there it is, right in inspired Scripture.

St. Paul defines the gospel in Acts 13:16-41 as the resurrection of Jesus (vss. 32-33), and in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 as His death, burial, and resurrection. When Paul converted, straightaway he also got baptized, in order to have his “sins washed away” (baptismal regeneration again). Biblical factors such as these caused people like Luther and Wesley and their denominations, and other communions like the Anglicans and Church of Christ to retain this doctrine.

Furthermore, when the rich young ruler asked Jesus how he could be saved (Lk 18:18-25), our Lord, accordingly, didn’t say “just believe in Me with faith alone.” No, He commanded him to perform a “work,” to sell all that he had. Jesus also rewards and grants salvation at least partially according to works and acts of charity, rather than on the basis of sola fide (Mt 16:27; 25:30-46 – note conjunction “for” in v.35).

So then, the explicit scriptural proclamations and definitions of the gospel strikingly exclude “faith alone,” while other actions by Jesus and the apostles contradict it by force of example. Conclusion?: The gospel is – as Paul teaches – the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus. (all of which Catholics fully accept along with all other Christians. This is the “good news,” not some technical soteriological theory. Even common sense would dictate that this “good news” is comprised of Jesus’ redemptive work for us: the great historical drama of His incarnation and atonement, not forensic, “legal,” imputed justification. And the prophets foretold these events, not a fine-tuned theory of application of those events to the believer — irregardless of whoever has the correct theory. How could a mere theological abstract reasonably be called “good news”?

Matthew 6:7 “And in praying do not heap up empty phrases [KJV: “vain repetitions”] as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words.”

BSC: And when you pray, keep repeating the same thing: repeat the Our Father, the Hail Mary, the Rosary and all the other litanies as many times as you can, because the more you speak the more you will be heard.

In Matthew 6:7, Jesus is discussing “empty phrases”. The Greek battalogeo here means “to repeat idly,” or “meaningless and mechanically repeated phrases.” So the Lord is condemning prayers uttered without the proper reverence or respect for God.

Psalm 136:1-5 [1] O give thanks to the LORD, for he is good,
for his steadfast love endures for ever.
[2] O give thanks to the God of gods,
for his steadfast love endures for ever.
[3] O give thanks to the Lord of lords,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
[4] to him who alone does great wonders,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;
[5] to him who by understanding made the heavens,
for his steadfast love endures for ever;

The same exact phrase is repeated in 26 straight verses, for the entire Psalm. Obviously, then, God is not opposed to all repetition whatsoever. Repetition is a device used throughout the Psalms and also in Proverbs and the prophets. For example, in Psalm 29 “voice of the Lord” is repeated seven times in as many verses. “Thou hast” is repeated in six straight verses in Psalm 44:9-14.

Instructions concerning the Mosaic Law in the first five books are extremely repetitious. Elaborate, painstaking Instructions for the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:1-22), the tabernacle (Ex 25:23-40; chapters 26-27), and the Temple (1 Kings, chapters 6-7) illustrate the highly ritualistic nature of Hebrew worship (see also Leviticus 23:37-38 and 24:5-8). The four gospels often repeat each other’s sayings. Many other examples could be cited.

Revelation 4:8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all round and within, and day and night they never cease to sing, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”

God is concerned with the inner dispositions and righteousness of the worshiper, and adherence to His commands (e.g., Is 56:6-7; Jer 17:24-26; Mal 1:11), not with outward appearance or how often something is repeated (which is contradicted by Psalm 136 and the passage above). This is a common theme in Scripture. Ritualistic, formal worship of God takes place in heaven (Rev 4:8-11; 5:8-14), complete with repetitious prayer and repeated chants or hymns (4:11, 5:9-10; cf. passages on wholehearted, non-hypocritical worship: Prov 15:8; 21:27; Is 1:13-17; Jer 6:19-20; Amos 5:11-14, 21-24; Mal 1:6-14; Mt 15:7-9; 23:23; Mk 7:6-7; Jas 1:26-27).

***

2 Timothy 3:15-17 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

BSC: Because from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, but insufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness, Sacred Tradition being necessary for the man of God to be able and fully prepared for every good work.

Paul also wrote the following extended treatment of many important aspects of the Christian life without ever mentioning Scripture:

Ephesians 4:11-16 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, [12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, [13] until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; [14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. [15] Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, [16] from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.

I stated along these lines in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003):

The “exclusivist” or “dichotomous” form of reasoning employed by Protestant apologists here is fundamentally flawed. . . . Note that in Ephesians 4:11-15 the Christian believer is “equipped,” “built up,” brought into “unity and mature manhood,” “knowledge of Jesus,” “the fulness of Christ,” and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the “perfecting” of the saints than 2 Timothy 3:16-17, yet it doesn’t even mention Scripture.

Therefore, the Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves too much, since if all nonscriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to synthesize the two passages in an inclusive, complementary fashion, by recognizing that the mere absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. Thus, the Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching. This is precisely the Catholic view. Neither passage is intended in an exclusive sense. (pp. 15-16)

I did an exhaustive study of St. Paul’s word usage in his epistles, comparing his mentions of Scripture with those pertaining to Church authority and tradition. The results were quite fascinating, and devastating to any notion that Paul subscribed to sola Scriptura, or had Scripture always in the forefront of his mind at all times, over against apostolic tradition and the authority of the Church.

The words “Scripture” or “Scriptures” appear 51 times in the New Testament. Yet in eight of his thirteen epistles (2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Titus, Philemon) St. Paul (it may be surprising to learn) never uses either of these words. He uses it only 14 times altogether: in Romans (6), 1 Corinthians (2), Galatians (3), 1 Timothy (2), and 2 Timothy (1).

Likewise, “word of God” appears 43 times in the New Testament, and many of these (as in Old Testament prophetic utterances) are intended in the sense of “oral proclamation” rather than “Scripture” (especially apart from the Gospels). St. Paul uses the phrase only ten times, in nine different epistles. And it is by no means certain that any individual instance refers without question specifically to Holy Scripture, rather than to oral proclamation of apostolic tradition. I suspect that it is much more likely the latter sense in most or all cases. . . .

Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Titus, and Philemon neither mention “Scripture” nor cite the OT, and Philippians doesn’t mention the word and makes just one OT citation. . . . even in Romans, Church /tradition notions appear eight times, which is more than “Scripture” / OT citations appear in nine epistles, and tied with 2 Corinthians.

John 2:1-5 On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; [2] Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. [3] When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” [4] And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” [5] His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

BSC: On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there; Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. Having run out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to him, ‘They have no more wine’. Jesus asked, ‘Mother, has my time come?’ And his mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever I tell you.’

If Banzoli can find any Catholic with an IQ above that of a mushroom, contending that Mary said “Do whatever I tell you” then we can talk. But since he can’t, he simply pretends without reason or cause that any Catholic would believe such a stupid thing, rather than simply accept the biblical text. It’s an appropriate final example of a pathetic, pitiful, ultra-absurd exercise.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: photograph depicting occupational burnout, created by Micro Biz Mag (www.microbizmag.co.uk/burnout-statistics-uk/) [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]
*
***
*

Summary: I refute 24 typical, garden-variety-type anti-Catholic whoppers from Lucas Banzoli’s failed and unfunny satire regarding a supposed “Catholic Dream Bible”.

***

March 4, 2023

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster for six blogs. He has many videos on YouTube.

This is my 65th refutation of Banzoli’s writings. From 25 May until 12 November 2022 he wrote not one single word in reply, claiming that my articles were “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and that “only a severely cognitively impaired person” would take them “seriously.” Nevertheless, he found them so “entertaining” that after almost six months of inaction he resolved to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.”

He has now replied to me 16 times (the last one dated 2-20-23). I disposed of the main themes of his numberless slanders in several Facebook posts under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page (where all my replies to him are listed). I shall try, by God’s grace, to ignore his innumerable insults henceforth, and heartily thank him for all these blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).

Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. I use the RSV for both my Bible citations and Banzoli’s. His words will be in blue.

*****

This is a reply to Lucas Banzoli’s article, “Refutando todas as calúnias católicas contra a rainha Isabel da Inglaterra” [Refuting all Catholic slanders against Queen Elizabeth of England] (4-13-18).

. . . the religious field, in which Elizabeth put an end to the terror spread by her late sister . . . 

Elizabeth did not make any kind of radical Protestant or anti-Catholic monarch, much less a tyrant who forced conversions or killed in the name of the faith. In fact, a large part of her enormous popularity in England was precisely due to this moderation that always kept her away from any religious persecution along the lines of her bloodthirsty sister. . . . 

Catholics, whether nobles or not, continued to exist throughout the entire Elizabethan period, but by the end of their rule “they hardly formed the twentieth part of the population” – even without any massacre, any auto-da -faith, no Inquisition and no obligation to stop being Catholic in order to stay alive. . . . 

She was . . . not a violent, bloodthirsty or warlike queen, but exceptionally tolerant by the standards of the time, pacifist and religiously moderate, which won the loyalty and loyalty of even her most Catholic subjects. . . . 

Elizabeth is accused of killing “hundreds of Catholics” over her 45 years of reign. In fact, a derisory number of Catholics were executed, equivalent to four for each year of reign [that would be 180], but none of them for “heresy” or for the “crime” of expressing their religious opinions. Instead, this number consists fundamentally of Jesuits sent to England on the specific mission of carrying out the “undertaking”, where Elizabeth would end up murdered and dethroned, and Mary Stuart would assume the crown in her place. . . . 

In short, what is known to any historian or serious scholar is that Elizabeth did not persecute any Catholic for religious convictions, nor did she impose any opposition to freedom of conscience, things that the Queen, famous for her moderation, abhorred. All she did was punish some Jesuits infiltrated in England with the specific mission of conspiring, raising the country through rebellions and betrayals, inciting political sabotage and finally murdering her . . . 

It is extremely important to note that during the entire first decade of her reign (i.e., the period before Pope Pius V’s Bull, the Northern Revolt, and the plots to assassinate the Queen) there was no death sentence in England. This fact is extremely significant, as it supports the historical fact that Elizabeth was not a religiously intolerant queen with an interest in punishing Catholics for the “crime” of heresy . . . 

Mary reigned for five years and killed 300 Protestants for heresy, while Elizabeth reigned for ten years without condemning anyone to capital punishment, and when she began to condemn, she did so for high treason, not for doctrinal reasons. Isabel’s numbers point to 187 executions (123 of which were Jesuit “missionaries”) throughout her 45 years of reign, which is equivalent to four individuals per year . . . 

Elizabeth’s England had no laws against heresy, no ecclesiastical courts judging people’s faith, no autos-da-fé, no public ceremonies for burning heretics, no restrictions on freedom of conscience, and no one was obligated ( although there was an incentive) to be a Protestant. What did exist, as everywhere else, was capital punishment (on the gallows or by decapitation) for those who committed the crime of high treason, in which the convicted Jesuits were, by far, the greatest professionals.

***

Well, we’ve had enough of lies and propaganda. Now how about historical truth, as best we can ascertain it? Banzolis view is that Bloody Queen Bess “reigned for ten years [1558-1568] without condemning anyone to capital punishment, and when she began to condemn, she did so for high treason, not for doctrinal reasons.” What I will proceed to massively demonstrate is that this is simply not true. The following is an abridged version of the documented information contained in 312 Catholic Martyrs & Confessors Under “Good Queen Bess” (Queen Elizabeth: r. 1558-1603) [2-8-08].

See that article for much fuller accounts. I will provide documentation of 512 Catholic martyrs under Bloody Queen Bess: the vast majority of them named. The former article didn’t provide links (usually from Catholic Encyclopedia or Wikipedia) about each martyr. They will be added below. The martyrs are listed chronologically by date of execution. Elizabeth ruled over the entirety of Ireland as well as England.

Queen Elizabeth is often regarded as a tolerant queen, yet during her reign (17 November 1558 – 24 March 1603), there were 302 executions –not counting ten executed members of the Northern Rising of 1569 — (most involving horrible prolonged tortures) or confessors’ deaths rotting away or starving to death or tortured to death in prisons for the “treasonous crime” of being Catholic. That is counting English victims only. But there were also about 210 Irish victims, for a grand total of at least 512 martyrs of the Catholic faith under “Good Queen Bess”. Henry VIII averaged about 16 executions or horrible starving deaths of Catholics a year, after he started murdering them in 1534.

Elizabeth averaged almost 12 per year for her entire 44 years and 4 months reign. Thus she showed herself on average to be about 75% as savage and vicious as her illustrious father, in terms of the frequency and rate of the butchery. After 1585 it was “treason” to be a priest and to set foot in England at all. Banzoli wants to make out that the charges of “treason” were only against wicked Catholics (mostly all the dreaded and despised Jesuit priests, of course) conspiring to murder their murderous queen. It’s simply not so. Keep reading if you doubt this. Facts have a marvelous ability to absolutely obliterate lies and myths.

Richard Coppinger: Benedictine. Died in prison in 1558.

Bishop Ralph Bayle: Died on 18 November 1559 in prison. He was one of eleven bishops whom Bloody Queen Bess deprived and left to die in prison.

Bishop Cuthbert Turnstall (or, Tunstall): Died on 18 November 1559 in prison.

Bishop Owen Oglethorpe: Died on 31 December 1559 in prison.

Thomas Slythurst: Priest. Died in the Tower of London, 1560.

Bishop John White: Died on 12 January, 1560 in prison.

William Chedsey: Priest. Died in a London prison in 1561.

Sir Edward Waldegrave: Layman. Died in a London prison in 1561.

Agnes Johnson: Laywoman. Died in a York prison in 1561.

John Fryer (or, Frier): Layman. Died in a London prison in 1563.

Bishop Richard Pate: Died on 23 November 1565 in prison.

Bishop David Poole: Died in May, 1568 in prison.

Bishop Edmund Bonner: When Elizabeth ascended to the throne he was ordered to resign, which he refused to do, adding that he preferred death. On 20th April, 1560, he was sent as a prisoner to the Marshalsea. When the Parliament of 1563 met, a new Act was passed by which the first refusal of the oath of royal supremacy was praemunire, the second, high treason. On 29th April, 1564 the oath was again tendered to Bonner by Horne, the Anglican Bishop of Winchester. This he firmly refused. Four times a year for three years he was forced to in the courts at Westminster only to be further remanded. The end came on 5th September, 1569, when he died in the Marshalsea.

Bishop Gilbert Bourne: During his brief episcopate he laboured zealously for the restoration of the Catholic religion, although towards heretics, as even Godwin, a Protestant, admits, he always used kindness rather than severity, nor do any seem to have been executed in his diocese. On his rejection of the Supremacy Oath, on 18 October, 1559, and his deprivation followed, [when he] was committed on 18 June a close prisoner to the Tower, . . . Thus began that continual “tossing and shifting” of the deposed prelates “from one keeper to another, from one prison to another”, . . . After nearly ten years of this suffering existence Bishop Bourne expired 10 September, 1569, at Silverton in Devonshire.

Anthony Draycott: Priest. Died in a London prison in 1570.

Blessed John Felton: On 24 or 25 May 1570, Felton affixed a copy of the Bull of St. Pius V excommunicating the queen to the gates of the Bishop of London’s palace near St. Paul’s. On 26 May 1570 he was arrested and taken to the Tower, where he was thrice racked, though he from the first confessed and gloried in his deed. He was condemned on 4 August and executed in St. Paul’s Churchyard, London on 8 August, 1570. He was cut down alive, and his heart was cut out.

Bishop Thomas Thurlby (or, Thirlby): Died in prison on 26 August, 1570.

Bishop James Thurberville (or, Turberville): Died in prison on 1 November 1570.

John Boxall: Priest. Died in a London prison in 1571.

Nicholas Grene: Priest. Died in a York prison in 1571.

Blessed John Story (or, Storey): When Queen Mary was on the throne, Story was one of her most active agents in prosecuting heretics, and was one of her proctors at the trial of Cranmer at Oxford in 1555. In 1560 he opposed the Bill of Supremacy , and incurred the ire of Queen Elizabeth. In August 1570, he was locked in the Tower of London and repeatedly tortured (including racking). Indicted on 26 May 1571 for conspiring against the Queen’s life. Throughout his misery, John bore his tortures with fortitude and claimed his innocence. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on the 1st of June 1571.

Thomas Sedgwick: Priest. Died in a Yorkshire prison in 1573.

Blessed Thomas Woodhouse: Priest. On 14 May, 1561, he was committed to the Fleet, London, having been arrested while saying Mass. For the rest of his life he remained in custody, but [was] treated with considerable leniency till on 19 November, 1572, he sent the prison washerwoman to Lord Burghley’s house with his famous letter. In it he begs him to seek reconciliation with the pope and earnestly to “persuade the Lady Elizabeth, who for her own great disobedience is most justly deposed, to submit herself unto her spiritual prince and father”. He was executed at Tyburn on 19 June, 1573, being disemboweled alive.

Thomas Gabyt: Cistercian. Executed in 1575.

Nicholas Harpsfield: Priest. Died in a London prison in 1575.

St. Cuthbert Mayne: Priest. On April 24, 1576, he left for the English mission. Elizabeth I’s agents quickly became aware of Mayne’s presence in the area and the authorities began a systematic search for him in June. The high sheriff, Sir Richard Grenville, discovered a Catholic devotional article, an Agnus Dei round Mayne’s neck, and took him into custody. The jury found Mayne guilty of high treason on all counts. He kissed a copy of the bible, declaring that, “the queen neither ever was, nor is, nor ever shall be, the head of the church of England” [and] was executed on November 29, 1577. It is unclear if he died on the gibbet. In any case, he was unconscious during the disemboweling.

Blessed John Nelson: Jesuit. Executed at Tyburn on February 3, 1578 . . . hung and cut down alive, his heart cut out, then quartered.

Blessed Thomas Nelson: Jesuit student. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on February 3, 1578.

[See the Wikipedia article for a gruesome description of the English punishment of being hanged, drawn, and quartered]

Bishop Nicholas Heath: Archbishop of York. Died in prison in December 1578.

Thomas Layne: Layman. Died in a York prison in 1579.

Blessed Thomas Sherwood: Layman. Racked with a view to extracting details of houses where Mass was celebrated, Thomas kept silent. As a result he was then thrown into a dungeon to rot, and the inevitable sentence of hanging, drawing and quartering was carried out at Tyburn on February 7, 1579.

Henry Cole: Priest. During Elizabeth’s reign he remained true to the Catholic Faith . . . committed to the Tower (20 May, 1560), and finally removed to the Fleet (10 June), where he remained for nearly twenty years, until his death in February 1579 (or February 1580).

Mr. Ailworth (or, Aylword): Admitted Catholics to Mass at his house; was arrested, and died after eight days, 1580.

John Cooper: Probably a distributor of Catholic books, arrested at Dover and sent to the Tower, died of “hunger, cold, and stench”, 1580.

Robert Dimock (or, Dymoke): Arrested at Mass, and perished after a few weeks’ imprisonment at Lincoln, 11 September, 1580.

John Molineaux: Layman. Died in a London prison in 1581.

John Constable: Layman. Died in a York prison in 1581.

Blessed Everald Hanse: Priest. He was asked in court at the Newgate Sessions, what he thought of the pope’s authority, and on his admitting that he believed him “to have the same authority now as he had a hundred years before”, he was further asked whether the pope had not erred (i.e. sinned) in declaring Elizabeth excommunicate, to which he answered, “I hope not.” He was at once found guilty of “persuasion” which was high treason, and was executed at Tyburn on 31 July, 1581.

St. Alexander Briant: Priest. Placed under arrest on 28 April 1581, in the hope of extorting information. After fruitless attempts to this end at Counter Prison, London, he was taken to the Tower where he was subjected to excruciating tortures. To the rack, starvation, and cold was added the inhuman forcing of needles under the nails. He was arraigned on 16 November 1581, in Queen’s Bench, Westminster, on the charge of high treason, and condemned to death. The details of this last great suffering [hanged, drawn, and quartered], which occurred on the 1 December [1581] following, like those of the previous torture, are revolting. In his letter to the Jesuit Fathers he protests that he felt no pain during the tortures he underwent, and adds: “Whether this that I say be miraculous or no, God knoweth”.

St. Edmund Campion: Jesuit priest. He led a hunted life, preaching and ministering to Catholics in Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire, and Lancashire. On his way to Norfolk, he stopped at Lyford in Berkshire, where he preached on July 14 and the following day, by popular request. Here, he was captured by a spy and taken to London. Committed to the Tower of London, he was questioned in the presence of Elizabeth, who asked him if he acknowledged her to be the true Queen of England. He replied in the affirmative, and she offered him wealth and dignities, but on conditions which his conscience could not allow. (To reject his Catholic faith.) He was kept a long time in prison, twice racked (by order of the Council but certainly with Elizabeth’s consent), and every effort was made to shake his constancy. Despite the effect of a false rumour of retraction and a forged confession, his adversaries in despair summoned him to four public conferences (September 1, 18, 23 and 27, 1581). Tortured again on October 31, he was indicted at Westminster on a charge of having conspired, along with others, at Rome and Reims to raise a sedition in the realm and dethrone the Queen. The great saint stated at the close of his “trial”:

In condemning us, you condemn all your own ancestors — all the ancient priests, bishops, and kings — all that was once the glory of England, the island of saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter. For what have we taught, however you may qualify it with the odious name of treason, that they did not uniformly teach? To be condemned with these old lights — not of England only, but of the world — by their degenerate descendants, is both gladness and glory to us. God lives; posterity will live; their judgment is not so liable to corruption as that of those who are now going to sentence us to death.

He answered the sentence of the traitor’s death with the Te Deum laudamus, and, after spending his last days in prayer, was hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn on December 1, 1581.

St. Ralph Sherwin: Priest. On 9 November [1577] he was  imprisoned in the Marshalsea, where he converted many fellow prisoners, and on 4 December was transferred to the Tower of London, where he was tortured on the rack and then laid out in the snow. He is said to have been personally offered a bishopric by Elizabeth I if he apostatised, but refused. After spending a year in prison he was finally brought to trial on a trumped up charge of treasonable conspiracy. On 1 December 1581 he was hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn.

St. John Payne: Early in July, 1581, he was arrested in Warwickshire through the efforts of the informer George “Judas” Eliot (a known criminal, murderer, rapist and thief, who made a career out of denouncing Catholics and priests for bounty). He was racked on August 14, and again on October 31. Paine was indicted at Chelmsford on March 22 on a charge of treason for conspiring to murder the Queen and her leading officers and install Mary, Queen of Scots on the throne. Paine denied the charges, and affirmed his loyalty to the Queen in all that was lawful (i.e., not contrary to his Catholicism or allegiance to the pope), contesting the reliability of the murderer Eliot. At his execution on the morning of the Monday April 2 [1582] he was dragged from prison on a hurdle to the place of execution and first prayed on his knees for almost half an hour and then kissed the scaffold, made a profession of faith and declared his innocence. The crowd had become so sympathetic to Paine that they hung on his feet to speed his death and prevented the infliction of the quartering until he was dead.

Blessed Thomas Ford: Priest. On July 17, 1581, he was arrested and on July 22nd of that same year, he was put in the Tower, where he was tortured. He was brought to court on November 16th with a faked charge of conspiracy. It said he had conspired in places he had never been (Rome and Rheims), on days he had been in England. Executed on May 28, 1582.

Blessed Robert Johnson: Priest. Racked on December 16, 1580 and put in a dungeon until his trial on November 14, 1581. He was condemned on November 20, and executed on May 28, 1582.

Blessed John Shert: Ordained in 1579. Executed on May 28, 1582.

Blessed Thomas Cottam: Convert and Jesuit. In June 1580 he was committed “close prisoner” to the Marshalsea. After being tortured, he was removed, 4 December, 1580, to the Tower, where he endured the rack and the “Scavenger’s Daughter”. On 30 May, 1582 he was drawn to Tyburn and executed.

Blessed William Filby: Priest. He was arrested in July 1581, committed to the Tower, removed 14 August to the Marshalsea, and thence back to the Tower again. He was sentenced 17 November, and from that date till he died was loaded with manacles. He was also deprived of his bedding for two months, and was executed at Tyburn, 30 May, 1582.

St. Luke Kirby: Convert and priest. In June of 1580, he was arrested on landing at Dover, and committed to the Gatehouse, Westminster. On December 4th, he was transferred to the Tower, where he was subjected to the “Scavenger’s Daughter” for more than an hour on December 9th. Kirby was condemned on November 17, 1581, and from April 2nd until the day he died [30 May 1582], he was put in irons.

Blessed Laurence Richardson: Priest. He was arrested in London in 1577 and imprisoned in Newgate, where he remained until the day of his indictment, 16 November, 1581, when he was committed to the Queen’s Bench Prison, and on the day of his condemnation, 17 November, to the Tower, where he had no bedding for two months. He was executed at Tyburn, 30 May, 1582.

Blessed Richard Kirkman: Priest. He was arrested on 8 August, 1582, and seems to have been arraigned a day or two after under 23 Eliz. c. 1. Executed at York on 22 August, 1582.

[The Act to retain the Queen’s Majesty’s subjects in their obedience (23 Eliz. c. 1), passed in 1581. This made it high treason to reconcile anyone or to be reconciled to “the Romish religion”

13 Eliz. c.1 made it high treason to affirm that the queen ought not to enjoy the Crown, or to declare her to be a heretic or schismatic; * 13 Eliz. c. 2, which made it high treason to put into effect any papal Bull of absolution, to absolve or reconcile any person to the Catholic Church, or to be so absolved or reconciled, or to procure or publish any papal Bull or writing whatsoever. The penalties of praemunire were enacted against all who brought into England or who gave to others “Agnus Dei” or articles blessed by the pope or by any one through faculties from him.

13 Eliz. c. 3, was designed to stop Catholics from taking refuge abroad, and declared that any subject departing the realm without the queen’s license, and not returning within six months, should forfeit the profits of his lands during life and all his goods and chattels.

An act against Jesuits, seminary priests, and such other like disobedient persons, (27 Eliz.1, c. 2) [1584] commanded all Roman Catholic priests to leave the country in 40 days or they be punished for high treason, unless within the 40 days they swore an oath to obey the Queen. Those who harbored them, and all those who knew of their presence and failed to inform the authorities would be fined and imprisoned, or where the authorities wished to make an example of them, they might be executed. This statute, under which most of the English martyrs suffered, made it high treason for any Jesuit or any seminary priest to be in England at all, and felony for any one to harbour or relieve them.]

Blessed William Lacey: Priest. After fourteen years’ persecution for his faith, which included imprisonment at Hull, and after the death of his wife, he went abroad and was ordained in 1580. On 10 May, 1581, he was at Loreto on his way to England. He was arrested after a Mass said by Thomas Bell, afterwards an apostate, in York Castle, 22 July, 1582. He suffered great hardships, being loaded with heavy irons, confined in an underground dungeon, and subjected to numerous examinations. He was arraigned on 11 August, probably under 13 Eliz. cc. 2 and 3. Executed at York on 22 August, 1582.

Blessed James Thompson (or, Hudson): Priest. He was arrested at York on 11 August, 1582. On being taken before the Council of the North he frankly confessed his priesthood. He was then loaded with double irons and was imprisoned, first in a private prison, then in the castle. On 25 November he was brought to the bar and condemned to the penalties of high treason. Three days later [28 November 1582] he suffered with great joy and tranquility at the Knavesmire, protesting that he had never plotted against the queen, and that he died in and for Catholic Faith. While he was hanging, he first raised his hands to heaven, then beat his breast with his right hand, and finally made a great sign of cross. In spite of his sentence, he was neither disemboweled nor quartered, but was buried under the gallows.

Thomas Ackridge: Franciscan. Died in prison in 1583.

Thurstan Arrowsmith: Layman. Died in prison in 1583.

James Laburne: Layman(?). Executed in 1583.

Thomas Mudde: Cistercian. Died in prison in 1583.

Blessed William Hart: Priest. He was betrayed by an apostate on Christmas Day, 1582, thrown into an underground dungeon, and put into double irons. Executed at York, 15 March, 1583.

Blessed Richard Thirkeld: Priest. On the eve of the Annunciation, 1583, he was arrested while visiting one of the Catholic prisoners in the Ousebridge Kidcote, York. The charge was one of having reconciled the queen’s subjects to the Church of Rome. He was found guilty on 27 May and condemned 28 May. Executed at York on 29 May, 1583.

Blessed John Bodley (or, Bodey): Convert and lay schoolmaster. Arrested in 1580, and spent three years in prison in Winchester. Hanged, drawn, and quartered on 2 November 1583 at Andover, England.

Blessed John Slade: Layman and schoolmaster. Hanged, drawn, and quartered on 2 November 1583 at Winchester, England.

Edward Arden: Born c. 1542. In 1583, Arden was indicted in Warwick for plotting against the life of the Queen and taken to London, where he was arraigned in the Guildhall, 16 December, 1583. He was convicted and was executed at Smithfield, 30 December, 1583. It is generally conceded that Arden was the innocent victim of a plot. He died protesting his innocence and declaring that his only crime was the profession of the Catholic religion.

Richard Hatton: Priest. Died in a London prison in 1583 or 1584.

Thomas Cotesmore 
William Chaplain
Roger (or, Robert) Holmes 
James Lomax
Roger Wakeman 

Priests. Perished in prisons in 1584. Of Wakeman’s suffering several harrowing details are on record.

John Collins: Priest. Died in 1584.

Henry Comberford: Priest. Died in a York prison in 1584.

William Travers: Layman. Died in a London prison in 1584.

Thomas Watson: Bishop of Lincoln. Died after being held in Wisbeach Castle, in 1584.

Blessed William Carter: A lay printer. Among other Catholic books he printed a new edition (1000 copies) of Dr. Gregory Martin’s A Treatise of Schism, in 1580, for which he was at once arrested and imprisoned in the Gatehouse. He was transferred to the Tower in 1582. Having been tortured on the rack, he was indicted at the Old Bailey, 10 January 1584, for having printed Dr. Martin’s book, in which was a paragraph where confidence was expressed that the Catholic Hope would triumph, and pious Judith would slay Holofernes. This was interpreted as an incitement to slay the queen, though it obviously had no such meaning. He was executed for for treason at Tyburn on 11 January, 1584.

Blessed James Fenn (or, Feun): Priest. He was named a conspirator of a bogus assassination plot, and hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on February 12, 1584.

Blessed George Haydock: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 12 February 1584. He acknowledged Elizabeth as his rightful queen, but confessed that he had called her a heretic. Haydock was alive when he was disemboweled.

Blessed Thomas Hemerford
Blessed John Munden
Blessed John Nutter

Priests. All hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 12 February 1584.

Blessed James Bell: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Lancaster on 20 April, 1584.

Blessed John Finch: Convert. His house was a centre of missionary work, he himself harbouring priests and aiding them in every way, besides acting as catechist. His zeal drew on him the hostility of the authorities, and at Christmas, 1581, he was entrapped and kept in the earl’s house as a prisoner, sometimes tortured and sometimes bribed in order to pervert him and induce him to give information. This failing, he was removed to the Fleet prison at Manchester and afterwards to the House of Correction. For many months he lay in a damp dungeon, ill-fed and ill-treated, desiring always that he might be brought to trial and martyrdom. After three years’ imprisonment, he was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Lancaster on 20 April, 1584.

John Feckenham: Benedictine, abbot of Westminster. Died in prison in 10 October 1584.

St. Richard White (or, Gwyn): In 1579 he was arrested by the Vicar of Wrexham, a former Catholic who had conformed to the new faith. He escaped and remained a fugitive for a year and a half, was recaptured, and spent the next four years in one prison after another until his execution. Gwyn was tortured often in prison, largely with the use of manacles. However, his adherence to the Catholic faith never wavered. Gwyn was condemned to death by hanging, drawing and quartering. This sentence was carried out in the Beast Market in Wrexham on 15 or 17  October 1584. When he appeared dead they cut him down, but he revived and remained conscious through the disemboweling, until his head was severed.

Thomas Crowther
Edward Pole
John Jetter

Priests. Perished in prisons in 1585.

John Ackridge: Priest. Perished in a prison in York in 1585.

Richard Creagh: Archbishop of Armagh, Ireland. Creagh preached loyalty to England. In 1567 he was lodged in the Tower of London, and kept there till his death in 1585. From his repeated examinations before the English Privy Council his unwavering loyalty to England were made plain. But his steadfastness in the Faith and his great popularity in Ireland were considered crimes, and in consequence the Council refused to set him free. Not content with this his moral character was assailed. The daughter of his jailer was urged to charge him with having assaulted her. The charge was investigated in public court, where the girl retracted, declaring her accusation absolutely false.

William Hambleton: Priest. Executed in 1585.

Stephen Hemsworth: Layman. Died in a York prison in 1585.

Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland: Layman. Died in a London prison in 1585.

Laurence Vaux: Priest. Arrested in Rochester in 1580 on information lodged by a spy. After several examinations Vaux was finally committed by the Bishop of London to the Gatehouse Prison, Westminster. In all probability he was abandoned to a lingering death in 1585 in prison.

John Almond: Cistercian, Confessor of the Faith; died in Hull Castle, 18 April, 1585. His case is of special interest as an example of the sufferings endured in the Elizabethan prisons. The courageous, patient old priest, after many sufferings in prison, was left in extreme age to pine away under a neglect that was revolting.

Thomas Vavasour: Physician. In 1572 he was accused of having entertained St. Edmund Campion. In Nov., 1574, he was sent into solitary confinement in the Hull Castle (York). Later on he was in the Gatehouse, Westminster, from which he was released on submitting to acknowledge the royal supremacy in religious matter; but he was again imprisoned as a recusant in Hull Castle, York where he died on 2 May 1585.

Blessed Thomas Alfield: Convert. Priest. Wavered at one point (after torture) and became a Protestant. But he regained his Catholic faith and was executed at Tyburn, 6 July, 1585.

Venerable Thomas Webley: Layman. Executed at Tyburn, 6 July, 1585.

Blessed Hugh Taylor: Priest. He was the first to suffer under the Statute 27 Eliz. c. 2. lately passed. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York, 25 November, 1585.

Blessed Marmaduke Bowes: Layman. Executed on 26 November 1585.

Robert Shelly (or, Richard Shelley): Layman. Died in a London prison in 1585 or 1586.

John Harrison: Priest. Perished in prison in 1586.

Gabriel Empringham
Robert Holland
Peter Lawson

Laymen. Died in London prisons in 1586.

Thomas Harwood: Priest. Died in a York prison in 1586.

Blessed Edward Stransham: Priest. Executed at Tyburn on 21 January, 1586.

Blessed Nicholas Woodfen: Executed at Tyburn on 21 January, 1586.

St. Margaret Clitherow: Converted to Roman Catholicism at the age of 18, in 1574. She then became a friend of the persecuted Roman Catholic population in the north of England. Her son, Henry, went to Reims to train as a Catholic priest. She regularly held Masses in her home in the Shambles in York. There was a hole cut between the attics of her house and the house next door, so that a priest could escape if there was a raid. In 1586, she was arrested and called before the York assizes for the crime of harbouring Roman Catholic priests. She refused to plead to the case so as to prevent a trial that would entail her children being made to testify, and she was executed by being crushed to death – the standard punishment for refusal to plead. On Good Friday of 1586, she was laid out upon a sharp rock, and a door was put on top of her and loaded with an immense weight of rocks and stones. Death occurred within fifteen minutes.

Blessed William Thomson (aka Blackburne): Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 20 April 1586.

Blessed Richard Sergeant: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn, 20 April, 1586.

Blessed Robert Anderton: Convert and priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered on 25 April 1586 on the Isle of Wight.

Blessed William Marsden: Convert and priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered on 25 April 1586 on the Isle of Wight.

Blessed Francis Ingleby: Priest. Executed at York on Friday, 3 June, 1586.

Blessed John Finglow (or, Fingley): Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York on 8 August 1586.

Blessed John Sandys: Priest. Hanged, drawn and quartered at Gloucester, 11 August, 1586. He was cut down while fully conscious and had a terrible struggle with the executioner, who had blackened his face to avoid recognition and used a rusty and ragged knife; but his last words were a prayer for his persecutors.

Blessed John Adams: Priest. Captured on December 19, 1585. In that year the Act had been passed making it a capital offence to be a Catholic priest in England. The sentence of hanging, drawing and quartering was completed at Tyburn, London on October 8, 1586.

Blessed Robert Bickerdike: Layman. Arrested for giving a priest, St. John Boste, a glass of ale, he was also accused at his trial of using treasonable words. He was acquitted, but Judge Rhodes, determined to have his blood, had him removed from the city gaol to the Castle and tried once more on the same charge. He was then condemned. Executed at York on 8 October 1586.

Blessed Robert Dibdale: Priest. He was arrested near Tothill Street in London on July 24, 1586 and was imprisoned first at the Counter then at Newgate. The terrible sentence of hanging, drawing and quartering was inevitable. It was carried out at Tyburn, London on October 8, 1586.

Blessed John Lowe: Priest. Hanged, drawn and quartered for being a priest at Tyburn, London on October 8, 1586.

Blessed Richard Langley: Layman and member of the gentry. Langley gave over his energies and a very considerable part of his fortune to assisting the oppressed clergy; his house was freely offered as an asylum to priests. During his investigation Langley was steadfast in his adherence to the Faith. He would not take the oath of the queen’s ecclesiastical supremacy, nor compromise his religious heritage. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered at York on 1 December 1586.

James Stonnes: Priest. He was arrested 19 Nov., 1585, in the Parish of Ormskirk, Lancashire. As he would not commit himself to the royal supremacy, though he acknowledged the queen as temporal sovereign, and as he confessed that he regarded her ecclesiastical policy as contrary to God’s law and refused to give up saying Mass, he was committed to the New Fleet, Manchester, where, as he was then aged 72, it is probable he died [c. 1586].

William Griffith
William Knowles

Laymen. Died in prisons in 1587.

Gabriel Thimelby: Priest. Perished in prison in 1587.

Ralph Cowling (or, Collins)
Isabel Foster
Mary Hutton

Laypeople. Died in York prisons in 1587.

Blessed Thomas Pilchard (or, Pilcher): Priest. He was arrested early in March, 1587, and imprisoned in Dorchester Gaol, and in the fortnight between committal to prison and condemnation converted thirty persons. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Dorchester on 21 March 1587. He was so cruelly drawn upon the hurdle that he was fainting when he came to the place of execution.

Blessed Edmund Sykes: Priest. He was betrayed by his brother, to whose house in Wath he had resorted. Executed at York Tyburn on 23 March, 1587.

Martin Sherson: Priest. He was imprisoned in the Marshalsea before 22 December, 1586, was still there in March 1587, and died soon after.

Thomas Somerset: He was committed to the Fleet, 10 June, 1562, “for translating an oration out of French, made by the Cardinal of Lorraine”, Charles de Guise, Archbishop of Reims, “and putting the same without authority in print”. After an imprisonment of close on twenty years he was released on bail, 28 Feb., 1581-82, to attend to legal business in Monmouthshire. But by 22 October, 1585, he was again in the Tower on a charge of high treason and died there on 27 May, 1587.

Blessed Stephen Rowsham: Priest. Remained a prisoner for more than three years, during half of which time (14 Aug., 1582, until 12 Feb., 1584) he was confined to the dungeon known as the “Little Ease”. Executed at Gloucester no later than July, 1587.

Blessed John Hambley: Priest. Denied his faith twice under duress. But the third time he was captured, he did not break, and was executed near Salisbury (Chard in Somerset) around July 1587, “standing to it manfully, and inveighing much against his former fault”.

Blessed Robert Sutton: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Stafford on 27 July, 1587.

Blessed George Douglas: Scottish priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York on 9 September 1587.

Dorothy Vavasour: Laywoman. Died in the New Counter, Ousebridge, York, 26 October, 1587.

Blessed Alexander Crow (or, Crowe): Priest. Executed at York on 13 November 1587.

Thomas Wood: Priest. Born c. 1499. On account of his religion he was committed to the Marshalsea 13 May, 1560. On 20 Nov., 1561, he was transferred to the Fleet. On 28 Nov., 1569, we find him in the Tower of London, threatened with the rack. He was still there in April, 1570. From the Tower he was removed to the Marshalsea again 14 Oct., 1571, and was still there in then aged 80, in July, 1580. He died in Wisbech Castle before 1588.

Lucy Budge: Laywoman. Died in a York prison in 1587 or 1588.

Humphrey Berisford: Layman. Died in prison around 1588.

William Baldwin (or, Bawden): Priest. Perished in a York prison in 1588.

William Deeg
John Jessop
Richard Kitchin (or, Kitchen)

Laymen. Died in prisons in 1588.

Philippa (or, Philippe) Lowe: Layman. Died in a London prison in 1588.

James Clayton: Priest. Condemned to death but died in Derby jail, 22 July, 1588.

Blessed Nicholas Garlick: Born c. 1555. Ordained 1582. On 23 July 1588, he was tried for coming into the kingdom and “seducing” the Queen’s subjects. Garlick, who acted as spokesman, answered, “I have not come to seduce, but to induce men to the Catholic faith. For this end have I come to the country, and for this will I work as long as I live.” He was condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered; carried out the next day [24 July 1588]. Here is the sentence:

That you and each of you be carried to the place from whence you came, and from thence be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, and be there severally hanged, but cut down while you are alive; that your privy members be cut off; that your bowels be taken out and burnt before your faces; that your heads be severed from your bodies; that your bodies be divided into four quarters, and that your quarters be at the Queen’s disposal; and the Lord have mercy on your souls.

Blessed Robert Ludlam: Priest. Hanged, drawn and quartered on 24 July 1588 at St. Mary’s Bridge, in Derby.

Blessed Richard Simpson: Priest. By July 1588, the Armada was on its way, and there was no longer any motive for sparing priests. Simpson and his companions were the first of thirty-two priests martyred that year. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered on 24 July 1588 at St. Mary’s Bridge, in Derby.

Venerable James Claxton (or, Clarkston): Priest. Executed between Brentford and Hounslow, Middlesex on 28 August 1588.

Blessed William Dean: Protestant minister who converted to Catholicism and became a priest. Executed on 28 August 1588 at Mile End in London.

Venerable Thomas Felton: Son of martyr, Blessed John Felton. Franciscan. He suffered terrible tortures in prison and was executed at Hounslow on 28 August 1588.

Venerable William Gunter: Priest. Executed on 28 August 1588 near the Theatre in London.

Blessed Thomas Holford: Priest. Hanged at Clerkenwell on 28 August 1588.

Venerable Hugh Moor: Born 1563. Layman. Condemned for having been reconciled to the Church by Fr. Thomas Stephenson, S.J. Executed in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, 28 August, 1588.

Venerable Robert Morton: Priest. Executed in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, 28 August, 1588.

Blessed Henry Webley: Layman. Condemned for assisting priests. Executed on 28 August 1588 at Mile End in London.

Blessed Richard Leigh: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 30 August 1588.

Blessed Richard Lloyd (or, Flower): Welsh layman. Condemned for entertaining a priest named William Horner, alias Forrest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 30 August 1588.

Blessed Richard Martin: Layman. Condemned for giving shelter to priests and hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 30 August 1588.

Blessed John Roche: Irish layman. Condemned for harboring priests and hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 30 August 1588.

Blessed Edward Shelley: Layman. Hanged at Tyburn for sheltering priests, on 30 August 1588.

St. Margaret Ward: Executed for helping a priest to escape from prison. Margaret Ward was kept in irons for eight days, was hung up by the hands, and scourged, but absolutely refused to disclose the priest’s whereabouts. She was offered a pardon if she would attend a Protestant service, but refused. She was hanged at Tyburn on 30 August 1588.

Blessed William Way (or, May): Priest. Hanged, disemboweled, and quartered at Kingston-on-Thames, 23 September, 1588.

Blessed Christopher Buxton: Priest. Being so young [26], it was thought that his constancy might be shaken by the sight of the barbarous butchery of his companions, and his life was offered him if he would conform to the new religion, but he courageously answered: “I would not purchase a corruptible life at such a rate, and, if I had one hundred lives, I would willingly lay them all down in defence of my faith.” He was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Canterbury, 1 October, 1588.

Blessed Edward Campion (aka Gerard Edwards): Priest. He was captured in Sittingbourne, Kent, and was imprisoned at the Newgate and the Marshalsea prisons in London following questioning by order of the Privy Council on 22 April 1587. Upon a second examination on 14 August 1588, he admitted to being a priest. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Oaten Hill, Canterbury, on 1 October 1588.

St. Ralph Crockett: Priest. He was put in a prison in London on 27 April 1586, where he remained for more than two years without trial. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Chichester, Sussex, 1 October 1588. He suffered with great constancy.

Blessed Edward James: In October, 1583 James was ordained as a priest in Rome by Bishop Thomas Goldwell, the last survivor of the English bishops who had refused to accept the Protestant Reformation. He was put in a prison in London on 27 April 1586, where he remained for more than two years without trial. Executed at Chichester, Sussex, 1 October 1588. He suffered with great constancy.

Blessed John Robertson (or, Robinson): Married layman, widower and then priest. Executed on 1 October, 1588 in Ipswich.

Blessed Robert Widmerpool:

Arrested for giving aid to a Catholic priest. Hanged, drawn and quartered at Canterbury on 1 October, 1588. He kissed the ladder and the rope, and with the rope round his neck gave God hearty thanks for bringing him to so great a glory as that of dying for his faith in the same place where St Thomas of Canterbury had died for his.

Blessed Robert Wilcox: Priest. Hanged, drawn and quartered at Canterbury on 1 October, 1588.

Blessed William Hartley: Priest. Executed at Tyburn on 5 October, 1588; he suffered with great constancy.

Venerable John Harrison (or, Symons): Layman. Executed in Halloway on 5 October, 1588.

Blessed John Hewitt (or, Weldon, or, Savell): Priest. On 4 October, 1588, he was formally arraigned on a charge of obtaining ordination from the See of Rome and entering England to exercise the ministry. He was sentenced to death, and the day following was taken through the streets of London to Mile End Green to be executed.

Blessed Robert Sutton: Lay schoolmaster. Executed at Clerkenwell on or around 5 October, 1588.

Blessed Edward Burden: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York on November 29, 1588.

Blessed William Lampley: Layman. Executed at Gloucester in 1588.

Richard Bolbet
Thomas Cosen
Mrs. Cosen (presumably Thomas’s wife)
Edward Ellis
Anne Lander

Laymen. Died in London prisons in 1589.

? Green: Layman. Died in prison in 1589.

John Amias: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered outside the city of York on March 16, 1589. He went to death “as joyfully as if to a feast”.

Blessed Robert Dalby: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered outside the city of York on March 16, 1589. He displayed no hesitation in going to his death.

Blessed Thomas Belson: Layman. He was arrested, tortured repeatedly, and found guilty of felony for assisting the priests, and was hanged with his companions at Oxford [5 July 1589].

Blessed George Nichols: Priest. In Oxford, Catholicism was increasing rapidly. Nichols during this time had converted many to the Catholic faith, notably a convicted highwayman in Oxford Castle. In May of 1589 he was arrested at the Catherine Wheel Inn, opposite of St. Mary Magdalen’s Church, in Oxford, with another priest Richard Yaxley, and two laymen, Humphrey Prichard and Thomas Belson. The four men were ultimately sent to Bridewell Prison in London, where Nichols and Yaxley, were hung from their hands for up to fifteen hours to make them betray their faith, but without any success. Nichols was then separated from the rest of the three prisoners and put into a dungeon full of vermin. On June 30th all four were ordered back to Oxford for their trial. Nichols and his fellow prisoners were tried under the recent statute imposing the death sentence on any Englishman ordained abroad who entered England, and on anyone helping such a person. All were condemned, the priests for treason, the laymen for felony. On July 5, 1589, Nichols, along with Yaxley, was hanged, drawn, and quartered, while Belson and Prichard were hanged.

Blessed Humphrey Pritchard: Welsh layman and convert. On 5 July, 1589 he was hanged in the town ditch of Oxford, which is now Broad Street, along with a wealthy Catholic landowner and two priests. On the scaffold he said, “I call all people here present to bear witness, in this world and on the Day of Judgment, that I die because I am a Catholic, a faithful Christian of Holy Church.”

Blessed Richard Yaxley: Priest. He was sent to the Bridewell prison in London, and hanged up for five hours to make him betray his host, but without avail. Yaxley was sent to the Tower as a close prisoner on 25 May, 1589, and appears to have been racked frequently. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Oxford on 5 July 1589.

Blessed Robert Hardesty: Layman. Executed for sheltering priests at York on 24 September 1589.

Blessed William Spenser: Ordained in 1584. Executed at York, 24 September, 1589.

Hugh Dutton: Layman. Died in a London prison between 1585-1590.

Thomas Bedal: Priest. Died in a York prison sometime between 1568-1590.

John Fitzherbert
David Gwynne
John Lander

Laymen. Died in London prisons in 1590.

Richard Bowes: Priest. Died in a York prison in 1590.

William Bredstock
Thomas Lynch

Laymen. Died in prisons in 1590.

Laurence Collier: Franciscan. Died in prison in 1590.

Ursula Foster: Laywoman. Died in a York prison in 1590.

William Heath: Layman. Died in prison in 1590.

Blessed Christopher Bales: Priest. Sent to England 2 November, 1588, he was soon arrested, racked, and tortured by Topcliffe, and hung up by the hands for twenty-four hours at a time; he bore all most patiently. At length he was tried and condemned for high treason, on the charge of having been ordained beyond seas and coming to England to exercise his office. He was executed on 4 March, 1590 in Fleet Street opposite Fetter Lane.

Blessed Alexander Blake: Layman. Condemned for harboring priests and executed at Gray’s Inn Lane on 4 March 1590.

Blessed Nicholas Horner: He was arrested on the charge of harbouring Catholic priests. Horner was hanged, drawn and quartered [4 March 1590].

Blessed Francis Dicconson: Priest. After many tortures in the worst London prisons under the infamous Topcliffe, he was condemned as a traitor, and hanged, drawn, and quartered at Rochester on 30 April, 1590.

Blessed Miles Gerard: Priest. After many tortures in the worst London prisons under the infamous Topcliffe, he was condemned as a traitor, and hanged, drawn, and quartered at Rochester on 30 April, 1590.

Blessed Edward Jones: Welsh priest. Hunted down and captured with the aid of spies posing as Catholics, he was hanged before the very doors of the houses in Fleet Street and Clerkenwell where he was arrested, on 6 May 1590.

Blessed Anthony Middleton: Priest. Executed with Bl. Edward Jones on 6 May 1590.

Blessed Edmund Duke: Priest. He fell under suspicion in a village in County Durham and was imprisoned and given a sentence of hanging, drawing and quartering for the treasonous crime of being a priest. Executed at Dryburne on May 27, 1590.

Blessed Richard Hill: Priest. Hanged, drawn and quartered at Dryburne on May 27, 1590.

Blessed John Hogg: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Dryburne on May 27, 1590.

Blessed Richard Holiday: Priest. Hanged, drawn and quartered at Dryburne on May 27, 1590.

Sir Thomas Fitzherbert
? Glynne

Laymen. Died in London prisons in 1591.

Stephen Branton: Layman. Died in a York prison in 1591.

? Maycock: Layman. Died in prison in 1590.

Blessed Robert Thorpe: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York, 15 May, 1591. Though naturally timorous, he met his death with great fortitude.

Blessed Thomas Watkinson: Layman. Condemned for harboring priests and executed at York, 15 May, 1591.

Blessed Monford Scott: Priest. In 1584 he was captured at York at brought to London, where he remained a prisoner for seven years. He was condemned on account of his priesthood and of his being in the country contrary to the Statute. He suffered martyrdom in Fleet Street on 1 July 1591.

Blessed George Beesley: A priest of singular courage, young, strong, and robust, he was captured by Topcliffe late in 1590, and was by his torture reduced to a skeleton. He endured all with invincible courage and could not be induced to betray his fellow Catholics. He was executed in Fleet Street, London on 2 July 1591.

Blessed Roger Dicconson: Priest. Executed at Winchester, 7 July, 1591.

Blessed Ralph Milner: Layman and convert. Every effort was made to persuade him to change his purpose and renounce the Faith. Unshaken in his resolution, Milner met his death with the utmost courage and calm [at Winchester, 7 July, 1591].

St. Edmund Gennings (or, Jennings): Priest. He was seized whilst in the act of saying Mass in the house of Saint Swithun Wells at Gray’s Inn in London on 7 November 1591 and was hanged, drawn and quartered outside the same house on 10 December [1591]. His execution was particularly bloody, as his final speech angered Topcliffe.

Blessed Sidney Hodgson: Layman and convert. He was condemned for harboring priests and becoming a Catholic. He was offered his life if he would give some sort of a promise of occasional conformity to the Established Church, but as he preferred to die for his religion, he was condemned and executed at Tyburn, 10 December, 1591.

Blessed Brian Lacey: He was committed to Bridewell where he was cruelly tortured by Topcliffe. He was condemned to be hanged for aiding and abetting priests and executed on 10 December 1591.

Ven. John Mason (or, Masson): Condemned as an aider and abettor of priests and executed on 10 December 1591.

St. Polydore Plasden: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 10 December 1591. At his execution he acknowledged Elizabeth as his lawful queen, whom he would defend to the best of his power against all her enemies, and he prayed for her and the whole realm, but said that he would rather forfeit a thousand lives than deny or fight against his religion.

St. Swithun (or, Swithin) Wells: Convert. For the crime of attending Mass, he was sentenced to die by hanging, and was executed outside his own house on 10 December 1591.

St. Eustace White: Priest. On 1 Sept., 1591, he was betrayed at Blandford, Dorset, by a lawyer with whom he had conversed upon religion. He was sent to London, and lodged in Bridwell, 18 September, where for forty-six days he was kept lying on straw with his hands closely manacled. On 25 October the Privy Council gave orders for his examination under torture, and on seven occasions he was kept hanging by his manacled hands for hours together; he also suffered deprivation of food and clothing. At his execution, after being cut down alive, he rose to his feet, but was tripped up and dragged to the fire where two men stood upon his arms while the executioner butchered him [10 December 1591].

Blessed William Pikes: Layman. Hanged, drawn and quartered on 22 December 1591.

Thomas Metham: Jesuit priest. Perished in prison in 1592.

Roger Martin: Priest. Executed in 1592.

Venerable Richard Williams: Welsh priest of Queen Mary’s reign. Executed in 1592.

Blessed William Patenson: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered on 22 January 1592 at Tyburn.

Blessed Thomas Pormort: Priest. In August or September, 1591, he was committed to Bridewell, whence he was removed to Topcliffe’s house. He was repeatedly racked and sustained a rupture in consequence. On 8 February following he was convicted of high treason for being a seminary priest. Executed at St. Paul’s Churchyard, 20 February, 1592.

Venerable Roger Ashton: He was tried and sentenced at Canterbury, and hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn, 23 June, 1592.

James Brushford: Priest. Died in a London prison in 1593.

Thomas Blenkinsop: Layman. Died in a York prison in 1593.

Blessed Edward Waterson: Priest. Executed at Newcastle on 7 January 1593.

Blessed James Bird: Layman and convert. He refused to take the Oath of Supremacy and was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Winchester in his native city, on 25 March 1593.

Blessed Anthony Page: Priest. Hanged, disemboweled, and quartered at York, 20 or 30 April, 1593.

Blessed Joseph Lampton: Executed on 27 July 1593, Newcastle-on-Tyne.

Blessed William Davies: Welsh priest. He was arrested in 1592 and it was decided that he must die as a traitor, though he was offered his life if he would go but once to church. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Beaumaris on 27 July 1593.

William Harrison: Priest. Died in a London prison in 1594.

Blessed John Speed (or, Spence): Layman. Executed at Durham, 4 February, 1594, for assisting the venerable martyr St. John Boste, whom he used to escort from one Catholic house to another.

Blessed William Harrington: Priest. Executed on 18 February, 1594, after nine months of imprisonment and proofs of unusual constancy and noble-mindedness in prison, at the bar, and on the scaffold.

Blessed Thomas Bosgrave: Layman. Condemned for assisting a priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Dorchester, 4 July, 1594. A man of some education, he delivered a stirring address on the truth of his belief prior to his execution.

Blessed John Carey: Born in Dublin. Layman. Condemned for assisting a priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Dorchester, 4 July, 1594.

Blessed John Cornelius (or, Mohun): Born in 1557 of Irish immigrant parents. Jesuit priest. He was sent to London and brought before the Lord Treasurer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and others, who, by words and torture, tried in vain to obtain the names of such as had given him shelter or assistance. He was hanged and hacked to pieces on 4 July 1594 at Dorchester, after praying for his executioners and for the welfare of the queen.

Blessed Patrick Salmon: Native of Dublin. Layman. Condemned for assisting a priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Dorchester, 4 July, 1594.

St. John Boste: Convert and priest. He was betrayed to the authorities near Durham in 1593. Following his arrest he was taken to the Tower of London for interrogation. Returned to Durham he was condemned by the Assizes and executed at nearby Dryburn on 24 July 1594. Boste denied that he was a traitor saying “My function is to invade souls, not to meddle with temporal invasions”.

Blessed John Ingram: Convert and priest. Captured on the Tyne, 25 November, 1593, he was imprisoned successively at Berwick, Durgam, York, and in the Tower of London, in which place he suffered the severest tortures (to induce him to name other Catholics) with great constancy, giving away nothing. Sent north again, he was imprisoned at York, Newcastle, and Durgam before being hanged, drawn, and quartered at Newcastle-on-Tyne, 25 July, 1594.

Blessed George Swallowell: convert. Executed at Darlington on 26 July, 1594.

Blessed Edward Osbaldeston: Priest. The day following his arrest he was taken to York where he was tried at the next assizes and attained of high treason. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York, 16 November, 1594.

John Eldersha: Layman. Died in a York prison sometime between 1585-1595.

James Atkinson: Catholic confessor, tortured to death in Bridewell prison in 1595 by Topcliffe, the notorious priest-hunter, who was trying to wring evidence from him, by torture. Yielding to torment, Atkinson broke, but shortly after repented, and was lost in despair, knowing on the one hand that Topcliffe would torture him again, perhaps unto death, and on the other fearing that no priest could possibly come to confess and absolve him before his conflict. At length, fellow prisoner Fr. William Baldwin absolved him. He died shortly afterwards as a result of yet more torture.

St. Robert Southwell: Jesuit priest. After six years of successful labor, Southwell was arrested and imprisoned at first in Richard Topcliffe’s house, where he was repeatedly put to the torture in the vain hope of extracting evidence about other priests. His imprisonment lasted for three years, during which period he was tortured on ten occasions. On February 20, 1595, Southwell was sent to Tyburn. Some of the onlookers tugged at his legs to hasten his death, and his body was then bowelled and quartered.

Blessed Alexander Rawlins: Priest. Hanged, drawn and quartered at York on 7 April 1595.

St. Henry Walpole: Jesuit. In February 1591 he was sent to the Tower, where he was frequently and severely racked. He remained there until, in the spring of 1595, he was sent back to York for trial, where he was hanged, drawn and quartered on 7 April 1595.

Blessed William Freeman: Priest. Executed at Warwick, 13 August, 1595.

St. Philip Howard: English nobleman: the 20th Earl of Arundel, and second cousin of the Queen. He was committed to the Tower of London on 25 April 1585. While charges of high treason were never proved, he was to spend ten years in the Tower, until his death of dysentery [on 19 October 1595]. He had petitioned the Queen as he lay dying to allow him to see his beloved wife and his son, who had been born after his imprisonment. The Queen responded that if he would return to Protestantism his request would be granted. He refused and died alone in the Tower.

William Abbot: Hanged, drawn and quartered at York, on 29 November 1596.

Blessed George Errington: Hanged, drawn and quartered at York, on 29 November 1596.

Blessed William Gibson: Layman. Hanged, drawn and quartered at York, on 29 November 1596.

Blessed William Knight: Layman. He was sent in October, 1593, to York Castle, where William Gibson and George Errington were already confined. A certain Protestant clergyman chanced to be among their fellow prisoners. To gain his freedom he had recourse to an act of treachery: feigning a desire to become a Catholic, he won the confidence of Knight and his two companions, who explained the Faith to him. With the connivance of the authorities, he was directed to one Henry Abbot, then at liberty, who endeavoured to procure a priest to reconcile him to the Church. Thereupon Abbot was arrested and, together with Knight and his two comrades, accused of persuading the Protestant clergyman to embrace Catholicism — an act of treason under the penal laws. They were found guilty, and were hanged, drawn, and quartered at York, on 29 November 1596.

Blessed Henry Abbot: Layman. Executed at York on 4 July 1597.

Blessed William Andleby: Priest. Executed at York on 4 July 1597.

Blessed Edward Fulthrop: Layman. Executed at York on 4 July 1597.

Blessed Thomas Warcop: Layman. Hanged for sheltering priests at York on 4 July 1597.

Blessed John Britton: Layman. He was often separated from his wife and family, owing to constant persecution which he suffered for his faith. When advanced in years, he was maliciously and falsely accused of traitorous speeches against the queen and condemned to death. Refusing to renounce his faith he was executed at York, as in cases of high treason, 1 April, 1598.

Blessed Ralph Grimston (or, Gromston): Layman. Condemned for assisting priests and hanged at York on June 15, 1598.

Blessed Peter Snow: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York on 15 June, 1598.

St. John Jones (or, John Buckley, or John Griffith): Priest. In 1596 the ‘priest catcher’ Topcliffe was informed by a spy. Father Jones was promptly arrested and severely tortured. He was also cruelly scourged. Then the sadistic Topcliffe took him to his house and personally tortured him. He was convicted of high treason and sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered [carried out on 12 July 1598].

Blessed Christopher Robinson (or, Robertson): Priest. Executed at Carlisle, 19 August 1598.

Venerable Richard Horner: Priest. Executed on 4 September 1598 in York.

Mathias Harrison: Layman. Died in 1599 in prison.

Venerable John Lion: Layman. Executed on 16 July 1599.

Venerable James Dowdall: Layman. Dowdall publicly avowed that he rejected the queen’s supremacy, and only recognized that of the Roman pontiff and thus was committed to Exeter jail. Whilst in prison he was tortured and put to the rack, but continued unchanged in his fidelity to the ancient faith. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Exeter on 20 September, 1599.

Eleanor Hunt: Gentlewoman. Perished in prison in 1600.

Blessed Christopher Wharton: Priest. Executed at York, 28 March, 1600. He suffered with great constancy.

St. John Rigby: Twice he was given the chance to repent [of being a Catholic]; twice he refused. He was executed by hanging at St. Thomas Waterings on June 21, 1600. Cut down too soon, he landed on his feet, but was thrown down and held while he was disemboweled.

Blessed Thomas Hunt: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered on 11 July 1600 at Lincoln.

Blessed Thomas Sprott: Priest. Executed at Lincoln on 11 July 1600.

Blessed Robert Nutter: Dominican priest. Spent some months in prison, subjected to torture and irons. Hanged at Lancaster, 26 July 1600.

Blessed Edward Thwing: Priest. On July 26, 1600, Father Thwing was executed at Lancaster by hanging, drawing, and quartering.

Venerable John Norton: Layman. Executed on 9 August 1600 at the gallows site in Durham.

Blessed Thomas Palasor: Priest. Executed at Durham on 9 August, 1600.

Blessed John Talbot: Layman. Executed on 9 August 1600 at the gallows site in Durham, on the crest of the hill at the north side of Durham City.

Blessed John Pibush: Priest. He was sentenced in July 1595 to suffer the penalties of high treason at St. Thomas’s Waterings, and in the meantime was to be returned to the Marshalsea. However, by the end of the year he was in the Queen’s Bench prison, where he remained for more than five years. Executed at St Thomas’s Waterings, Camberwell, 18 February, 1601.

Blessed Mark Barkworth: Convert and Benedictine priest. After having escaped from the hands of the Huguenots of La Rochelle, he was arrested on reaching England and thrown into Newgate, where he was imprisoned for six months, and was then transferred to Bridewell. At his examinations he was reported to behave with fearlessness and frank gaiety. Having been condemned with a formal jury verdict, he was thrown into “Limbo”, the horrible underground dungeon at Newgate, where he is said to have remained “very cheerful” till his death. Barkworth was executed at Tyburn on February 27, 1601.

Blessed Roger Filcock: Born 1553. Priest by 1597. Executed at Tyburn on 27 February 1601.

St. Anne Line (or, Linne): Around 1594, Fr. John Gerard opened a house of refuge for hiding priests, and put the newly-widowed Anne Line in charge of it, despite her ill health and frequent headaches. By 1597, this house had become insecure, so another was opened, and Anne Line was, again, placed in charge. On 2 February 1601, Fr. Francis Page was saying Mass in the house managed by Anne Line, when men arrived to arrest him. The priest managed to slip into a special hiding place, prepared by Anne, and afterwards to escape, but she was arrested, along with two other laypeople. Anne Line was hanged at Tyburn on 27 February 1601.

Blessed Thurston Hunt: Priest. Hunt was captured and treated with great inhumanity, heavily ironed night and day until, by the order of the Privy Council, with his feet tied beneath his horse’s belly, he was carried in public disgrace up to London and back again to Lancaster, where he was condemned and executed for being a priest. He reconciled to the Church the felons condemned to die with him. Executed at Lancaster on 31 March 1601.

Venerable Thomas Hackshot: Layman. Condemned for helping the priest, Ven. Thomas Tichborne, to escape from prison. Executed at Tyburn, London, 24 August, 1601.

Venerable Nicholas Tichborne: Layman. Condemned for helping his brother, the priest Ven. Thomas Tichborne, to escape from prison. During his long imprisonment in the Gatehouse he was “afflicted with divers torments, which he endured with great courage and fortitude.” Executed at Tyburn, London, 24 August, 1601.

Blessed Robert Middleton: Jesuit priest. Hanged and beheaded in October 1601.

Mrs. Wells: Gentlewoman. Perished in prison in 1602.

Anthony Battie (or, Bates): Layman. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York on 22 March, 1602.

Venerable James Harrison: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York on 22 March, 1602.

Blessed James Duckett: Layman and convert. Out of his twelve years of married life, no less than nine were spent in prison for his new faith. He was very active in propagating Catholic literature and was betrayed by Peter Bullock, a bookbinder, who acted in order to obtain his own release from prison. Duckett’s house was searched and Catholic books found. For this he was at once thrown into Newgate. Despite the betrayal of Duckett, Bullock was taken to his death at Tyburn in the same cart as Duckett on April 19, 1602.

Blessed Francis Page: Convert and Jesuit. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on April 20, 1602.

Venerable Thomas Tichborne: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on April 20, 1602. He was in the last stages of consumption when he was martyred.

Blessed Robert Watkinson: Ordained in 1602. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on April 20, 1602.

Blessed William Richardson (or, Anderson): Priest. He was betrayed by one of his trusted friends to the Lord Chief Justice, who expedited his trial and execution with unseemly haste, and seems to have acted more as a public prosecutor than as a judge. At his execution he showed great courage and constancy, dying most cheerfully. One of his last utterances was a prayer for the queen. Executed at Tyburn, 17 February, 1603.

***

See also 210 more Irish Catholic martyrs (up through 1603) in my article, 444 Irish Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors: 1565-1713 [2-27-08].

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: The “Darnley Portrait” of Queen Elizabeth I of England (1575). It was named after a previous owner. Probably painted from life. [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: I copiously document (with links) 512 Catholic martyrs who met their ends due to the murderous reign of Bloody Queen Bess (Queen Elizabeth I) of merrie olde England.

February 23, 2023

+ The Church Fathers on Auricular Confession to a Priest

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster for six blogs. He has many videos on YouTube.

This is my 64th refutation of Banzoli’s writings. From 25 May until 12 November 2022 he wrote not one single word in reply, claiming that my articles were “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and that “only a severely cognitively impaired person” would take them “seriously.” Nevertheless, he found them so “entertaining” that after almost six months of inaction he resolved to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.”

He has now replied to me 16 times (the last one dated 2-20-23). I disposed of the main themes of his numberless slanders in several Facebook posts under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page (where all my replies to him are listed). I shall try, by God’s grace, to ignore his innumerable insults henceforth, and heartily thank him for all these blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).

Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. I use the RSV for both my Bible citations and Banzoli’s. His words will be in blue.

*****

This is a reply to Lucas Banzoli’s article, “Os discípulos podiam perdoar pecados?” [Could the disciples forgive sins?] (9-18-15)

The Roman Church bases its teaching on ear confession upon John 20:22-23, which says:

John 20:22-23 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. [23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

On this basis, it declares that the Roman priests have the authority to withhold or forgive sins effectively, being means through which we must pass to obtain the forgiveness of our sins. Evangelicals, however, understand that we can confess our sins directly to God.

Catholics are free to confess any sins which are not subjectively mortal, or grave, directly to God, and in fact, there is a general absolution that covers such sins at every Mass. Here is that portion (Latin / western rites); the way it is usually done:

PENITENTIAL ACT

I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done and in what I have
failed to do,
[And, striking their breast, they say]:
through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.

Absolution of the Priest:

C: May almighty God have mercy on us
forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life.

P: Amen.

Thus, right in every Mass, Catholics are collectively asking God for forgiveness of sins. Thus it’s beyond silly and absurd to believe that Catholics don’t have this as part of their constant practice. But if one commits a subjectively mortal sin, then it’s required in Catholicism that they are contrite, confess it to a priest, who then offers formal sacramental absolution. In cases of venial sin, the Catholic is free to take it straight to God or to utilize the sacrament of reconciliation.

David . . . said:

Psalm 32:5 I acknowledged my sin to thee, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD”; then thou didst forgive the guilt of my sin.

Either David was lying, or sins can be confessed straight to God! Ezra, another great errant, likewise asserted:

Ezra 10:11 “Now then make confession to the LORD the God of your fathers, and do his will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.”

As usual, it’s not the stark “either/or” and false dichotomy scenario so sadly familiar in Protestant thought. David confessed in this instance directly to God, just as Catholics do at every Mass, and privately during prayer. But there was also formal forgiveness and atonement in ancient Israel and OT times, as I will soon prove, and which Banzoli should already be aware of, if he claims to know the Bible well.

Ezra was not a “great errant.” He was a priest (Ezra 7:11), and in this instance was praying to God as an intermediary for his people, not because of his own sin, but theirs (much like a Catholic priest offering absolution). Banzoli can’t even get this basic fact right because he obviously didn’t read the passage closely enough. The widespread sin was taking on wives of foreigners who served false gods (Ezra 9:1-2).

The rest of this chapter (9:3-17) and the beginning of the next (10: 1-6) shows Ezra in great distress, praying for his people, which is a constant motif in the Old Testament: the holy men praying that God would forgive sinners and great collective among the people (which I have documented; see also a Facebook addendum with further examples). Again, this is much like going to a Catholic priest in confession who then acts as an agent of dispensing God’s forgiveness through formal absolution.

Ezra had offered the “evening sacrifice” during this time (9:5), which was the formal way to receive forgiveness of sins in the Mosaic OT system of law. Ezra 10:1 reports that “Ezra prayed and made confession”: again, not for himself but for his people, functioning just like a Catholic priest in the confessional does. We see Moses doing the same thing (Ex 32:30-32). Ezra was a priest offering sacrifice in the temple. This was how God forgave Jews in OT times. See, for example:

Leviticus 5:5-6 When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, [6] and he shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Leviticus 19:21-22 but he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the LORD, to the door of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. [22] And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the LORD for his sin which he has committed; and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him.

This is virtually Catholic absolution already: 3200 years ago. A search for “priest” and “atonement” appearing together in the OT yielded 28 matches in Leviticus and Numbers. King David, as a good Jew, took part in this. He was commanded to like everyone else was. So we see that he “he sacrificed an ox and a fatling” (2 Sam 6:13) and “offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD” (2 Sam 6:17). Thus, his confession directly to God was not all that was involved. He also had to participate in the OT sacrificial system of atonement for sins, which bears an uncanny resemblance to Catholic confession and absolution (minus the animal sacrifice).

There is not a single line or prescription in the Bible commanding the faithful to confess their secret sins to priests, as an absolute prerequisite for finding divine forgiveness. This would be really absurd if the forgiveness of sins (something indispensable for salvation) depended on the approval of a priest.

Banzoli hangs himself again (!!!) with a dumb universal negative statement that is easily proven to be false. I go through this every time I refute his anti-Catholic nonsense. Leviticus 5:5-6 and 19:21-22 show a remarkably similar process to the Catholic sacrament of reconciliation (contrition, followed by confession and absolution and assigned penance). The New Testament develops and continues this thought. With John the Baptist, people came “confessing their sins” (Mt 3:6; Mk 1:5) and being baptized, which entailed a “repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mk 1:4). The water of baptism took their sins away just as the sacrament of absolution wipes away Catholic confessed sins.

Jesus specifically set up such a system with his disciples, who were the type and foreshadowing of priests:

Matthew 16:19 “I will give you [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (cf. John 20:22-23 above)

Confession (possibly to men) is shown in the book of Acts:

Acts 19:18 Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices. (cf. 1 Jn 1:8-9)

The “came” in this passage suggests that they confessed to Paul or possibly to him and/or to the public assembly. Otherwise, it seems to me that the text would have simply stated that they confessed, not that they “came” to where Paul was to do so.

In James, we have a more direct suggestion that priests were offering absolution along with prayers:

James 5:14-16 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; [15] and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. [16] Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

We know for sure that here we have sick people specifically going to the “elders” (priests), who pray and anoint them. This is our sacrament of anointing or extreme unction (aka “last rites”). 5:15 strongly suggests these same prayers and rituals of the elders allow sins to “be forgiven”. And then the next verse mentions “confess your sins to one another”. I don’t see that this would exclude the elders. The whole passage presupposes that these elders are holy men, and that their prayers — which have “great power” — can heal and offer forgiveness. Doctrines develop, but just about everything we need to establish an explicitly biblical sanction of Catholic confession and absolution is already present in the above passages.

As is well known, auricular confession was absolutely unknown to the Fathers of the Church, and was only invented as a dogma at the Lateran Council, in 1215, during the pontificate of Pope Innocent III. The attempts by Catholic apologists to distort patristic statements in favor of auricular confession in the early centuries is . . . laughable . . . 

Another universal negative! This guy’s pseudo-“arguments” are a running joke.

And there is still a seventh remission of sins through penance, although admittedly it is difficult and toilsome, when the sinner washes “his couch in tears” (Cf. Ps 6.7) and his “tears” become his “bread day and night,” (Cf. Ps 41.4) when he is not ashamed to make known his sin to the priest of the Lord and to seek a cure according to the one who says, “I said, ‘I will proclaim to the Lord my injustice against myself,’ and you forgave the impiety of my heart.”

What the Apostle James said is fulfilled in this: “But if anyone is sick, let that person call the presbyters of the Church, and they will place their hands on him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and if he is in sins, they will be forgiven him.” (Jas 5.14-15) (Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 [A.D. 248])

I entreat you, beloved brethren, that each one should confess his own sin, while he who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession may be received, while the satisfaction and remission made by the priests are pleasing to the Lord? (Cyprian, Treatise 3: On the Lapsed, 29 [A.D. 251], in ANF, IV: 445)

Just as a man is enlightened by the Holy Spirit when he is baptized by a priest, so he who confesses his sins with a repentant heart obtains their remission from the priest. (St. Athanasius, 295-373 AD, On the Gospel of Luke 19)

It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries [i.e. the Sacraments] is entrusted [i.e. priests]. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt 3:6]; but in Acts they confessed to the Apostles, by whom also all were baptized [Acts 19:18]. (Basil the Great, Rule Briefly Treated, 288 [A.D. 374] )

For if any one will consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to draw nigh to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation. For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. For it has not been said to them, ‘Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.’ They who rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of the soul and penetrates the heavens; and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants. For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority which He has given them when He says, ‘Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained?’ What authority could be greater than this? ‘The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son?’ But I see it all put into the hands of these men by the Son. (John Chrysostom, The Priesthood, 3:5 [A.D. 387], in NPNF1, IX: 47)

The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. (Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, I, ch, 2, sec. 8 [A.D. 388], in NPNF2, X: 330)

Just as in the Old Testament the priest makes the leper clean or unclean, so in the New Testament the bishop and presbyter binds or looses not those who are innocent or guilty, but by reason of their office, when they have heard various kinds of sins, they know who is to be bound and who loosed. (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, 3:16, 19 [A.D. 398], in JUR, II:202)

All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, then, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven. (Augustine, Christian Combat [A.D. 397] )

This is the medicine for sins, established by God and delivered to the priests of the Church, who make diligent use of it in healing the afflictions of men. You are aware of these things, as also of the fact that God, because He greatly cares for us, gave us penitence and showed us the medicine of repentance; and He established some men, those who are priests, as physicians of sins. If in this world we receive through them healing and forgiveness of sins, we shall be delivered from the judgment that is to come. It behooves us, therefore, to draw near to the priests in great confidence and to reveal to them our sins; and those priests, with all diligence, solicitude, and love, and in accord with the regulations mentioned above, will grant healing to sinners. [The priests] will not disclose the things that ought not be disclosed; rather, they will be silent about the things that have happened, as befits true and loving fathers [cf. 1 Thess 2:11; 1 Cor 4:15] who are bound to guard the shame of their children while striving to heal their bodies. (Theodore of Mopsuestia, c. 428 AD, Catechetical Homilies 16)

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: The Confession (1838), by Giuseppe Molteni (1800-1867) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

***

Summary: I go through the many biblical evidences in favor of confession & absolution, and reply to counter-arguments. I also provide significant patristic proofs for same.

February 22, 2023

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster for six blogs. He has many videos on YouTube.

This is my 63rd refutation of Banzoli’s writings. From 25 May until 12 November 2022 he wrote not one single word in reply, claiming that my articles were “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and that “only a severely cognitively impaired person” would take them “seriously.” Nevertheless, he found them so “entertaining” that after almost six months of inaction he resolved to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.”

He has now replied to me 16 times (the last one dated 2-20-23). I disposed of the main themes of his numberless slanders in several Facebook posts under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page (where all my replies to him are listed). I shall try, by God’s grace, to ignore his innumerable insults henceforth, and heartily thank him for all these blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).

Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in blue. Words from past replies of mine to him will be in green.

*****

This is a reply to Lucas Banzoli’s article, “A nova tentativa de Dave de justificar a idolatria católica” [Dave’s New Attempt to Justify Catholic Idolatry] (2-20-23).

The feeling is that Dave is pressured by his readers to write something in response to my articles,

Mostly my readers urge me to ignore Banzoli as an idiot. Just two hours ago, for example, someone wrote on my Facebook page under a little article refuting yet another Banzoli error: “Man, you keep casting pearls before swine.” So if there is any “pressure” it’s to not reply.

It must be an immeasurable shame that a gentleman whose profession is apologetics and who makes a living from it alone is not able to give a minimally decent answer to a young man who has apologetics only as a hobby, not as a job . . . 

This is very interesting. Banzoli has been lying for months, saying I have no job at all, and now he wants to switch on a dime and assert that apologetics is my “profession” and “job”? I guess this is Orwellian doublethink and doublespeak. Normally such a drastic change would call for a retraction and apology. But then, alas, four paragraphs later, he writes that “this is his ‘job'”: implying that it really isn’t. So the doublethink continues full force.

See, for example, what Pope Pius XII said:

And the Empyrean saw that she was really worthy of receiving the honor, the glory, the empire, — because more full of grace, more holy, more beautiful, more deified, incomparably more, than the greatest saints and the most sublime angels, or separately or together; —because mysteriously related in the order of the Hypostatic Union with the whole Blessed Trinity, with the One who is by essence the infinite Majesty, King of kings and Lord of lords, who is the eldest Daughter of the Father and the Supreme Mother of the Word and the beloved Spouse of the Holy Spirit ; — because Mother of the divine King, of the One to whom the Lord God gave the throne of David and eternal royalty in the house of Jacob from her mother’s womb and who from himself proclaimed, to have been given all power in heaven and on earth: He, the Son of God, reflects upon the heavenly Mother the glory, the majesty, the empire of her royalty; — Because associated, as Mother and Minister, with the King of martyrs in the ineffable work of human Redemption, she is forever associated with him, with an almost immense power, in the distribution of the graces that derive from Redemption. (Radio Advertisement to the Portugese Faithful on the Occasion of the Celebration of the Coronation of Our Lady of Fatima, May 13, 1946)

I see no problem here. This is all quite biblical. She receives honor?:

1 Chronicles 29:20 (RSV) Then David said to all the assembly, “Bless the LORD your God.” And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads, and worshiped [shachah] the LORD, and did obeisance [shachah] to the king. [KJV: “worshipped the LORD, and the king”]

2 Chronicles 32:33 And Hezekiah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the chiefest of the sepulchres of the sons of David: and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honour at his death. . . .

Luke 1:42, 45 “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! . . . [45] And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”

1 Peter 2:17 Honor all men. . . .

So should we honor Mary? Of course! She’s the Mother of God the Son. How could we not honor such a person? How about Mary receiving glory? Is that outrageous idolatry or a biblical thing? It’s the latter (odd how Banzoli could be ignorant of so much Scripture!):

John 17:22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,

Romans 2:10 . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

Romans 5:2 Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.

Romans 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory,

2 Corinthians 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

1 Thessalonians 2:12 to lead a life worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.

2 Thessalonians 2:14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 4:14 If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.

1 Peter 5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. (cf. 5:4)

2 Peter 1:3 . . . through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory [see many more such passages]

Mary is relatively more deified? That’s no problem, since we are all called to that. The Bible teaches that followers of Christ would be “united with him” (Rom 6:5), “one spirit with him” (1 Cor 6:17), “changed into his likeness” (2 Cor 3:18), “filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph 3:19) and “the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13); indeed, “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). Even Martin Luther taught deification.

mysteriously related in the order of the Hypostatic Union with the whole Blessed Trinity

Yes, she is related to God in the Holy Trinity, as the Mother of God the Incarnate Son, miraculously impregnated by the Holy Spirit and thus able to be called His “spouse” in a sense. “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” — like “Mother of God” — is wrongly thought to imply an equality with God, when in fact it’s only a limited analogical description based on Mary’s relation to the Holy Spirit in the matter of the conception of Jesus. This description is no more “unbiblical” or non-harmonious with scriptural thought than St. Paul saying “we are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9; cf. 2 Cor 6:1).

Along these lines, there are many biblical passages about Israel or the Church being the “bride” of God the Father or Jesus Christ, God the Son:

Isaiah 54:5 For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; . . .

Isaiah 62:5 . . . as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.

Jeremiah 31:32 . . . my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. (cf. 3:20)

Hosea 2:16, 19-20 “And in that day, says the LORD, you will call me, `My husband,’ and no longer will you call me, `My Ba’al.’ . . . [19] And I will betroth you to me for ever; . . . (cf. 4:12; 9:1)

Matthew 9:15 And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them?” (cf. Mk 2:19-20; Lk 5:34-35; Mt 25:1-10)

2 Corinthians 11:2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband.

Ephesians 5:28-29, 32 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. [29] For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, . . . [32] This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church (cf. Rev 19:7; 21:2; 21:9)

God chose to involve her intimately with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Who are we to second-guess Him? Intimacy with God is, again, something all believers were meant to experience. The Holy Spirit is in us (the indwelling). We are “in” the Father and the Son (Jn 17:21; 1 Jn 2:24), and “in” Jesus (Jn 6:56; 14:20; 15:4-7; 16:33; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 4:13; Col 2:6-7, 10; 1 Jn 2:24, 28; 5:20). God is in us (1 Jn 3:24; 4:13, 15) and we are “in” God (Col 3:3; 1 Jn 2:5, 24; 3:6, 24; 4:13, 15). Jesus is “in” us (Jn 14:20).

God the Father just took these principles a bit further in the case of Mary, since she was the Mother of His Son. So Mary was associated with God “in the ineffable work of human Redemption” and “the distribution of the graces that derive from Redemption”? So was the Apostle Paul:

Romans 11:13-14 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.

1 Corinthians 9:22 I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

2 Corinthians 1:6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; . . .

2 Corinthians 4:15 For it [his many sufferings: 4:8-12, 17] is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

Ephesians 3:2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you…

So does God intend us to be:

1 Corinthians 7:16 Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

Ephesians 4:29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear. [is not “imparting grace” the same as “distributing” it?]

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching: hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives [Paul says that Timothy can help save others, and wives and husbands can help “save” their spouses (and Peter concurs with the latter notion), thus also becoming a mini-mediators]

1 Peter 4:8b-10 . . . love covers a multitude of sins. Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another. As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace.

James 5:20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. [Paul and others “save” other people, thus becoming “mini-mediators” in the sense that they are vessels for the grace and salvation that comes from God, won by Jesus’ wholly sufficient and perfect sacrificial death on the cross]

Banzoli simply needs to think more biblically. It’s a problem completely able to be solved. When he learns that, he will be able to easily comprehend Catholic Mariology. Catholics are so much more biblical than Protestants are, it takes time for the latter to learn and catch up. But that’s one reason I’m here: to help assist people to think more biblically.

Banzoli has a problem with Pope Leo XIII stating on September 12, 1897: “Yet our manner of praying to the Blessed Virgin has something in common with our worship of God, so that the Church even addresses to her the words with which we pray to God: ‘Have mercy on sinners.’ ”

Lots of things have elements in common with others, without being the equivalent of the other thing. This is common sense and logic. Walking and bicycling have in common the constant motion of legs. Does that make walking and bicycling the same thing? No. Arithmetic and calculus both work with numbers. Does that make them the same thing? No. Painting a house and painting a portrait of a beautiful woman both involve paint and a brush. Does that make them identical? No. Anti-Catholic Banzoli and anti-theist atheists both call me stupid. Does that make Banzoli an atheist? No. And so on and so forth.

Likewise, a thing that is not worship of God may have a characteristic that it has in common with worshiping God. Did anyone ever pray or say “have mercy” to anyone besides God? Sure; the rich man prayed this to Abraham: “Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz’arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame” (Lk 16:24). Does that make Abraham God? No. But it makes him able to hear and also to answer (if it’s God’s will) a prayer.

God told Abimelech that Abraham would pray for him, so he could live, “for” Abraham was “a prophet” (Gen 20:6-7). In effect then, Abraham had mercy on Abimelech, too, because he played a key role in the entire event. “All Israel” (1 Sam 12:1) “said to Samuel [the prophet], ‘Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, that we may not die’. . .” (1 Sam 12:19). Samuel exercised mercy, just as Mary does if we ask her, “have mercy on sinners.”

God told Job’s “friends”: “my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly” (Job 42:8). Same principle again. Why did God listen to Job’s prayers? It’s because God Himself stated that “there is none like” Job “on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil” (Job 1:8). King Zedekiah asked the holy prophet Jeremiah to pray for him and the country (Jer 37:3).

Exodus 32:30 On the morrow Moses said to the people, “You have sinned a great sin. And now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” Did Moses have mercy on his people? Yes. Does that make him God? No. “Then the people cried to Moses; and Moses prayed to the LORD, and the fire abated” (Num 11:2). “Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray thee, according to the greatness of thy steadfast love, and according as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.” Then the LORD said, “I have pardoned, according to your [Moses’] word” (Num 14:19-20). See many many more examples.

There are things that creatures do that result in mercy or grace (even salvation) being extended to more and more people. This is how God designed it. We best follow His examples.

***

Some sort of sidekick of Banzoli, named André Marinho, tried to undercut my argument about Mary’s intercession, in a comment underneath Banzoli’s article (on 2-24-23) that is refuted above. He thought he did so by citing words of Pope Francis that are supposedly “against” the Mariology that I hold (in perfect harmony with the Church). Rightly understood, of course there is no difference. But nice try. E for effort, and also for performance. Here are my articles that refute Marinho’s claims, along with two related ones by others:

Pope Francis vs. the Marian Title “Co-Redemptrix”? (+ Documentation of Pope Francis’ and Other Popes’ Use of the Mariological Title of Veneration: “Mother of All”) [12-16-19]

Pope Francis’ Deep Devotion to Mary (Esp. Mary Mediatrix) [12-23-19]

Pope Francis and Mary Co-Redemptrix (Robert Fastiggi, Where Peter Is, 12-27-19)

Pope Francis and the coredemptive role of Mary, the “Woman of salvation” (Mark Miravalle & Robert Fastiggi, La Stampa, 1-8-20)

His other arguments, made in surrounding comments (which were conveniently seized upon by Banzoli as an excuse not to reply to this article: “I don’t even need to say anything else”), are too ridiculous and dumbfounded to spend any further time on. I just wanted to set the record straight about the complete agreement between myself and Pope Francis with regard to Mary. This is an old trick that anti-Catholic polemicists play quite a bit: pretending that popes oppose what an apologist like myself argues in favor of. They merely expose their gross ignorance in attempting these ludicrous pseudo-“arguments.”

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Our Mother of Perpetual Help, a 15th Century Marian Byzantine icon. [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Anti-Catholic Lucas Banzoli fanatically opposes a biblically venerated “Catholic” Mary. I relentlessly refute his anti-biblicism with dozens of Scripture passages.

***

 

February 18, 2023

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster for six blogs. He has many videos on YouTube.

This is my 62nd refutation of Banzoli’s writings. From 25 May until 12 November 2022 he wrote not one single word in reply, claiming that my articles were “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and that “only a severely cognitively impaired person” would take them “seriously.” Nevertheless, he found them so “entertaining” that after almost six months of inaction he resolved to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.”

He has now replied to me 15 times (the last one dated 2-9-23). I disposed of the main themes of his numberless slander in several Facebook posts under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page (where all my replies to him are listed). I shall try, by God’s grace, to ignore his innumerable insults henceforth, and heartily thank him for all these blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).

Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in blue. Words from past replies of mine to him will be in green.

*****

This is my reply to Lucas Banzoli’s article, “Dave Armstrong muda de teoria sobre Josefo e reconhece seu erro sobre Hegésipo” [Dave Armstrong Changes His Theory About Josephus and Acknowledges His Error About Hegesippus] (1-5-23].

[I]n September of last year, Dave wrote this article, where he argues that Josephus could not be taken seriously, basically, because he was not a Christian.

It’s not quite that simple. I cite Josephus all the time in disputes regarding historical fact. But in this instance, it’s a bit different, as I explained:

Why does he want to rely on a Roman Jewish historian, when it comes to questions of Christian doctrine?  Josephus, not being a Christian at all, obviously wouldn’t even accept the virgin birth of Jesus, let alone a proposed perpetual virginity of Mary.  So why would Lucas appeal to him . . .? . . . 

Lucas’ reliance on Josephus with regard to the issue at hand, reminds me of the Protestant falling back on the post-Christian Jews with regard to the biblical canon, because they rejected the deuterocanonical books, whereas the early Christians included them in the Bible. If it comes to a question of refuting Catholics, any “witness” is good enough to enlist. They’ll follow the opinion of religious Jews rather than early Christians, if needs be.

That‘s a perfectly valid point, as opposed to Banzoli’s caricature: that I supposedly dismissed Josephus and his stature as an ancient historian merely because he was Jewish.

Dave could have used the occasion to simply also admit that Josephus is evidence against the Marian dogma of perpetual virginity and leave it at that, if only because that does not end the debate, which is biblical rather than historical in nature. But that would be asking a lot, since Josephus, a contemporary of Jesus, would hardly be mistaken on this point . . . 

The exact opposite is true: of course he could and likely would be mistaken, per the point I made above in my previous reply. Why would we expect a non-Christian to be objective about our supernatural doctrines? Both the virgin birth and Mary’s perpetual virginity (rightly and fully understood, including virginity [an intact hymen] during Jesus’ birth) would clearly not be accepted by a non-Christian. Therefore, we wouldn’t and shouldn’t (before we start analyzing what he wrote) expect Joseph to accept either doctrine. I haven’t renounced that part of my formerly stated position, because there is no need to.

and remember that, for Catholics, this doctrine cannot even be placed in doubt, as it is a dogmai.e., an indisputable doctrine and necessary to believe for salvation.

That’s correct. But I’m not arguing the matter a way that presupposes it as binding dogma. I’m simply examining related biblical and historical evidences. The current question at hand is what Josephus meant in his one single reference to James as Jesus’ “brother” (adephos). That can be discussed with no reference or recourse to Catholic dogma whatsoever. It’s an historical and literary question separate even from theology, let alone Catholic dogma.

As far as bias goes, of course Banzoli has a strong bias against Mary’s perpetual virginity. Neither one of us a completely objective logical machine. We have prior beliefs and we want the debate to have a particular outcome. Let’s not fool ourselves. But I never bow to this silliness that supposedly Catholics are always too biased by their beliefs to have a normal, rational conversation, whereas Protestants are assumed to have no bias at all, since they are the only true Bible believers and walking truth machines, etc.

Hence they cannot simply admit the existence of such strong evidence to the contrary, for the mere existence of contrary evidence is enough to throw dogma into doubt (and a dogma can never be in doubt).

If I found such evidence, I would admit it, and then I would have a difficulty that I would have to work through. I would cross that bridge when I came to it. As of yet, I haven’t found such “strong evidence” or even weak evidence to the contrary.

This time, the theory is that Josephus cited James as Jesus’ brother because he relied on the “Aramaic usage” of the term (even though he was writing in Greek rather than Aramaic), where “brother” can basically mean anything and everything, and problem solved. 

Yes. It’s a live possibility, plausible, and it hasn’t been decisively disproven. The fact remains that we can’t be sure which meaning Josephus intended, and we can’t because of 1) contemporary ranges of the meaning of adelphos, and 2) Josephus’ own use of it elsewhere as a half-brother and not a full sibling, in cases where some might casually interpret his use as meaning as full sibling. That’s why we can’t know for sure what he meant in calling James Jesus’ adelphos.

To put it in simpler terms, Dave’s new theory is as follows: Josephus wrote in Greek (a language that had specific words for brother and cousin) and spoke of cousins ​​(anepsios) on several occasions, but when it came to James he preferred say he was a brother (adelphos) because he was suddenly attacked by a surge of Jewish nationalism and he remembered that in Aramaic there was no word for “cousin”, and so he wrote “brother” in Greek. And why then does the same Josephus refer to cousins ​​on several other occasions in that same work?

Because that’s how Greek works and how it also works for a Jew speaking Greek in a Jewish culture (with Aramaic as its current language). Sometimes anepsios or suggenes (“cousin”) are used, and sometimes adelphos for cousins or even countrymen, fellow Christians, etc. I’ve already shown at length that adelphos was used this way for James and Joseph in the NT, because they are expressly stated to be sons of a different Mary: the wife of Clopas. Thus they can’t possibly (granting an inspired, infallible Scripture) be Jesus’ siblings, yet they are called His adelphoi.

The reason Catholics demand that the brothers of Jesus be named as children of Mary is because in Roman Catholicism, unlike the Bible, Mary is the strongest reference, and Jesus is an almost helpless being who lets Mary step in and take over.

Nonsense. First of all, she’s not the “strongest reference” in Catholicism (Jesus is that, despite Banzoli’s ridiculous, laughable caricature above). Secondly, as I noted above, the argument is not being made as if we’re dong Catholic systematic theology, but rather, as an exegetical (biblical) and historical matter (re Josephus). No one is “demanding” anything. We are simply making a logical observation that if the Bible had called these “brothers” the “sons of Mary” then we would not be having this disagreement at all. All would agree, because it would be inexorably stated as a not-able-to-be-questioned truth in the inspired NT.

The fact of the matter, however, is that this doesn’t occur, and that leaves the matter speculative, because of the latitude of meaning of adelphos. A statement that these brothers were Mary’s sons would cut through all that because it would prove their status as siblings. Therefore, the lack of same makes it more difficult for those who deny Mary’s perpetual virginity to make their biblical case. But we, on the other hand, can pretty much prove that James and Joseph were Jesus’ cousins, from the Bible. Our case is a lot stronger.

Indeed, the very fact that these brothers of Jesus are mentioned alongside Mary on so many occasions is strong evidence that they were indeed Mary’s children. It would be very strange for Mary to walk all the time with Jesus’ brothers to and fro, if they were only Jesus’ cousins ​​who had their own mothers (these mothers who abandoned them, apparently…).

Not at all, in light of our understanding of the nature of Jewish families at that time and place — as I have written about — as extended in nature (to cousins and aunts and uncles); very unlike our present nuclear families, which are the norm in modern society: basically since the industrial revolution. Before that, even western cultures — in rural communities — tended to have more extended family structures. I majored in sociology. This is the sort of thing that I learned a lot about.  For example, in the book, Families in Ancient Israel (Leo G. Perdue, editor; Westminster John Knox Press, 1997) we find this description:

The familial roles of males in the household’s kinship structure included those of lineal descent and marriage — grandfather, father, son, and husband — and those lateral relationships — brother, uncle, nephew, and cousin. (pp. 179-180)

If Banzoli had known and understood this (and it ain’t rocket science), he wouldn’t have even made the statement above.

[T]he Bible does not enter into “intimate domestic contexts” when it comes to the life of Jesus. Only Matthew and Luke narrate anything of Jesus’ childhood (Mark and John completely omit it), and even then only in the context of Jesus’ birth, when he had no siblings. 

It doesn’t have to. We can understand much more about families in biblical times by pursuing historical studies in this area. Understanding that Jesus’ first cousins would have routinely been present with Him in that culture, explains a lot related to the dispute at hand. Not understanding this would lead one to likely assume without proper proof, that they are siblings.

As if there were some source before Tertullian calling them cousins…

In the first century, the Bible proved this as regards two of the four named “brothers”:

By comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph [aka “Joses”: Mk 15:40] — mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus’ “brothers” — are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This “other Mary” (Matthew 27:61, 28:1) is called Our Lady’s adelphe in John 19:25 (it isn’t likely that there were two women named “Mary” in one family — thus even this usage apparently means “cousin” or more distant relative, or sister-in-law).

Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and “sisters” along with James and Joseph, calling all adelphoi. Since we know for sure that at least James and Joseph are not Jesus’ blood brothers, the most likely interpretation of Matthew 13:55 is that all these “brothers” are cousins, . . .

James (along with sometimes Joseph) is called the son of this “other Mary”: wife of Clopas or Alphaeus [alternate names for one person], in Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 24:10, and “the son of Alphaeus” in Matthew 10:3 / Mark 3:18 / Luke 6:15 / Acts 1:13. This second Mary is called “the wife of Clopas and the “sister” of Mary the mother of Jesus in John 19:25. This is strong evidence that James and Joseph were not sons of Mary the mother of Jesus, and hence not Jesus’ siblings (and indirect evidence that Simon and Jude are of the same similar status as relatives). Rather, it appears that they are Jesus’ first cousins or more distant cousins.

I cited James B. Prothro, Assistant Professor of Scripture and Theology, whose academic work “focuses on the letters and thought of the Apostle Paul and on the ancient Greek language.” He obtained a Ph.D. in New Testament from the University of Cambridge and an MA in classics and MDiv in theology from other universities. He wrote:

An instructive example comes from Philip’s designation as Herod Antipas’ ἀδελφός, which the Synoptic authors write without qualification (Mark 6:17//Matt 14:3//Luke 3:19). . . . To ask whether Jesus’ ἀδελφοί/αί and he shared a mother is not necessarily special pleading in the interest of some alien “tradition,” but an acknowledgment that our texts—like most—omit much specificity as unessential and that ἀδελφός/ή need not imply uterine fraternity/sorority.

As it turns out, they were actually siblings, albeit on their father’s side rather than on their father and mother (see here and here). This does nothing to endorse the Catholic thesis that Jesus’ brothers were only cousins ​​(that is, that they were not his brothers on either his father’s or mother’s side). 

That’s a good point, and one well-taken. It does not, however, help his case against Mary’s perpetual virginity. It works against it, since it’s yet another NT usage of adelphos, not for a full sibling (common children of both a mother and father), but for a half-brother or half-sister (with one common parent only). Thus, this particular scriptural data would be in harmony with the Epiphanian theory (the “brothers” as sons of Joseph and a former wife; he being a widower). It would not be evidence towards the “cousins” theory (I presented that evidence from Scripture, above). It could also conceivably be the case that both things are true: some of the “brothers” were cousins and some half-brothers.

But what Banzoli neglects to see is that this is evidence against Mary having other children, since if adelphos can refer to half-brothers, then it can refer to Jesus’ half-brothers (if that is what they were) in a way which doesn’t include Mary (i.e., they are children of Joseph from a prior marriage). But even that would be in a legal sense only, since we all know that Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ biological father.

Catholics are free to accept either the “half-brother” or “stepbrother” theory or St. Jerome’s cousins theory. We’re not required to hold to either; only to hold that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Eastern Catholics and some among Western Catholics, hold to the Epiphanian theory. Most Western or Latin Catholics (including myself) hold to the cousins theory. Either one upholds Mary’s perpetual virginity.

In the first paragraph above, Dr. Prothro documents how Josephus (proven by his own express explanation) uses adelphos in a sense other than sibling, and in the second paragraph notes that he sometimes uses adelphoi “as an equivalent of συγγενεῖς [syngeneís].” [second statement referred to, with my bracketed clarification: “Josephus can use ἀδελφοί as a collective as an equivalent of συγγενεῖς [syngeneís: usually rendered ‘cousin’] (BJ 6.356–357). . . .]

This is simply false, because, as we have seen, the almighty Dr. Protho was unable to produce a single quote from Josephus where a cousin is called a brother and not a cousin. 

To the contrary, he did. The reference is seen above (BJ = Wars of the Jews). Here is the exact quotation:

On the same day it was that the sons and brethren [ἀδελφοί / adelphoi] of Izates the king, together with many others of the eminent men of the populace, got together there, and besought Caesar to give them his right hand for their security; upon which, though he was very angry at all that were now remaining, yet did he not lay aside his old moderation, but received these men. At that time, indeed, he kept them all in custody, but still bound the king’s sons and kinsmen [συγγενεῖς / syngeneís], and led them with him to Rome, in order to make them hostages for their country’s fidelity to the Romans. (Book VI, ch. 6, sec. 4; William Whiston translation, 1737)

To see the exact mini-section, with the original Greek text, too, see the translation by Henry St. John Thackeray (1928):

On the same day the sons and brothers [ἀδελφοί / adelphoi] of king Izates, who were joined by many of the eminent townsfolk, entreated Caesar to grant them a pledge of protection. Though infuriated at all the survivors, Titus, with the unalterable humanity of his character, received them. For the present he kept them all in custody; the king’s sons and kinsmen [συγγενεῖς / syngeneís] he subsequently brought up in chains to Rome as hostages for the allegiance of their country.

We see, then (notwithstanding Banzoli’s false and ignorant claim to the contrary), that Josephus used both adelphoi and syngeneís  for the same group of people in the same context: those allied with the sons of King Izates. This absolutely proves what he meant, because he interpreted his own usage by referring to the same group in both ways. As we are constantly reminded by the opponents of perpetual virginity, syngeneís or sungenis or suggenes [multiple spellings] primarily means “cousin.” The Blue Letter Bible (Strong’s #G4773) explains:

Strong’s Definitions: a relative (by blood); by extension, a fellow countryman:—cousin, kin(-sfolk, -sman).

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon: of the same kin, akin to, related by blood, . . . in a wider sense, of the same race, a fellow-countryman:

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:

Cousin:

in Luk 1:36 (so in the most authentic mss.) and sungenes in Luk 1:58 (plural), AV, “cousin” and “cousins,” respectively signify “kinswoman” and “kinsfolk,” (RV); so the RV and AV in Luk 2:4421:16. The word lit. signifies “born with,” i.e., of the same stock, or descent; hence “kinsman, kindred.” See KIN, KINSFOLK, KINSWOMAN.

The same reference page indicates that the word is translated in KJV as “kinsman (7x), cousin (2x), kinsfolk (2x), kin (1x).” It’s the word used to describe Mary’s cousin Elizabeth (KJV: “cousin”: Lk 1:36). Jesus arguably used it in the same sense: “A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house” (KJV: Mk 6:4; cf. Jn 7:5 (RSV): “For even his brothers [ἀδελφοί / adelphoi] did not believe in him”).

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (one-volume edition, p. 1097) has this for syngenes:

2) The LXX.

a. The LXX uses the noun 44 times for “relations,” i.e., “relatives.” . . .

3) Judaism.

a. Philo has the noun some 80 times for “relatives,” . . .

b. . . . in Josephus, . . . syngenes is very common and usually denotes the “relative” in the narrower sense.

King Izates II (c. 1-54) had but one sibling, Monobazus II (both sons of Queen Helena of Adiabene and King Monobazus I). Therefore, for Josephus to refer to his “brethren / brothers / [ἀδελφοί / adelphoi] couldn’t possibly be in reference to full siblings, since he had only one of those. I documented last time how Josephus uses adelphos for half-brothers:

In AntiquitiesBook XVIII, ch. 4, sec. 6, Josephus refers to “Philip, Herod’s brother” (likely using adelphos there). In Wars of the JewsBook II, ch. 6, sec. 1, he refers to “Archelaus’s brother Philip.”

But we know that they were not siblings (sons of the same mother and father). In Wars of the JewsBook II, ch. 7, sec. 4, Josephus mentions “Alexander, who was the brother of Archelaus, . . . This Alexander was the son of Herod the king . . .” Again, he likely uses adelphos, but is not referring to literal siblings, since we know that this Alexander‘s mother was Mariamne. Wikipedia (Philip the Tetrarch”informs us that Philip was “son of Herod the Great and his fifth wife, Cleopatra of Jerusalem, . . . half-brother of Herod Antipas and Herod Archelaus.” The mother of the latter two men was Malthace.

All this being the case, we can’t know for sure that when Josephus calls James the Lord’s “brother” adelphos, he means full sibling, half-brother, or cousin. He uses the word in all three ways, so any of those meanings is possible in the one instance. Two out of the three are harmonious with Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Banzoli can carp on and on about all this as much as he wants, but those are the facts, and he can’t absolutely prove Josephus’ meaning, as much as he tries or would wish to. And if he can’t prove it, then he also has no grounds for mocking and belittling the Catholic position(s), as he always does (lest the sky fall down if he didn’t).

After all this, Dave makes his final argument, based on a gross methodological error that would fail any university course (if he had taken one):

I wanted to include just one example of probably fifty or more in this one reply, of Banzoli’s ceaseless and literally mindless insults and lies about me. Now he implies that I never went to college? I have a BA in sociology, cum laude; 3.47 GPA, from the third largest university in Michigan, Wayne State University in Detroit.  This included many courses in philosophy (including logic), and history.

I should have majored in history, or (if I had gotten serious about Christianity) theology. It’s one of my few major regrets in my life. But God uses the education I received in my work all the time. All things work together for good (Rom 8:28). It helped me understand the secular / agnostic mindset (sociology being quite dominated by secular thought), and to love science even more than I already did: both of which are very valuable in discussions with atheists.

Banzoli then critiques my analysis of Josephus’ use of terms for relatives, compared to the NT and LXX. Here he actually makes a rare minor valid point, but it has no ill effect against my argument (especially my more advanced and elaborate one seen above), so granting it gives him no further advantage. I think I adequately demonstrated that the usage was remarkably similar, for whatever that is worth (maybe not a whole lot but something more than nothing).

The “methodology” that Dave devised to prove that Josephus made broader use of the term adelphos (which included any prime) would be fine if it weren’t for two problems. The first: it makes no difference whether Josephus named infinitely more brothers than cousins, if there is not actually an occasion when he named a cousin as a brother.

Now I have documented that there is at least one such instance, as demanded by Banzoli. It was already cited but not typed out, in my last reply, but Banzoli in his rush to (always) mock and utterly dismiss my arguments, either missed it or pretended that it wasn’t there. So he has made a fool of himself all the more, with silly statements that meet their fatal refutations (alas, a sadly and also comically regular occurrence).

And he knows he has none, because not even his coach – Dr. Protho, whom he paints as a great scholar of Josephus – had any text to quote us in that direction. 

I do not know that. I already knew the contrary. And I knew it because Dr. Prothro (not “Protho”) directed me to it. Now I have further analyzed it, complete with two variant translations of Josephus, and Greek parallel text, absolutely proving my point. I am so thankful that Banzoli counter-responded (one of only fifteen thus far, compared to my 62 refutations of his stuff), so that I could yet again greatly strengthen my argument. I love when that happens!

If Josephus always cited cousin as cousin and brother as brother, all that Dave’s “methodology” shows us is that he cited brothers more often than cousins ​​(not that he cited cousins ​​as brothers).

Since it’s proven that he didn’t, this is a non sequitur: one of Banzoli’s true hallmarks.

In any work it is natural for brothers to be cited far more than cousinsTo ensure that my suspicion was correct, I consulted several books that I have here in pdf – books that were not written by Jewish authors of that time, that is, who had no reason to change “cousin” to “brother” – and all they presented the same disproportion that Dave claims to the four corners of the earth as the great “proof” that Josephus and the NT authors spoke of cousins ​​as brothers.

This is a legitimate point. I gladly concede and grant it. Unfortunately for Banzoli, it has no adverse effect on my argument, since I proved that Josephus’ use adelphos and syngeneis in the same fashion in the same context with the same referent: precisely what he demanded that I do.

As long as he does not show in Josephus’ works a cousin who was effectively called by him “brother”, all he is proving is his difficulty in dealing with the painful fact that the thesis he has always maintained is flimsy, a fraud, and indefensible.

So what happens now that I have proven what he demanded I prove? If the past is any guide, Banzoli will 1) ignore it, and 2) flee for the hills.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: The Virgin of the Lilies (1899), by William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Josephus uses adelphos [lit., “brother”] many times in a sense other than “sibling.” Thus, his meaning when he refers to James, the “brother of Jesus” isn’t certain.

February 13, 2023

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster (active on and off) for six blogs. He has many videos on YouTube.

This is my 61st refutation of Banzoli’s writings. For almost half a year (5-25-22 to 11-12-22) he wrote not one single word in reply, because my articles were deemed to be “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and he believes that “only a severely cognitively impaired person would be inclined to take” them “seriously.” Despite this childish rationalizing, he found my refutations so “entertaining” that he bravely decided to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.”

He has now replied to me 15 times (the last one dated 2-9-23). I disposed of the main themes of his slanderous insults in several Facebook posts under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page (where all my replies to him are listed). I shall try, by God’s grace, to ignore his innumerable insults henceforth, and heartily thank him for all these blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).

Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in blueWords from past replies of mine to him will be in green.

*****

See Part I: Defending 20 Biblical Proofs for the Papacy (vs. Lucas Banzoli) (2-13-23)

***

This is my reply to Lucas Banzoli’s article, “Refutando as “20 maiores provas bíblicas” que Dave encontrou do papado de Pedro (Parte 2)” [Refuting the “20 Greatest Biblical Proofs” Dave Found for the Papacy of Peter (Part 2)] (2-9-23). Despite his heroic resolve to refute any and all of my [now 61] critiques of his arguments “one by one,” for some odd reason he chose to pass over my massive four-part counter-reply, “Reply to Lucas Banzoli’s 205 Potshots at St. Peter” (5-26-22) and to concentrate on my older article (not directed towards him): “Top Twenty Biblical Proofs for the Office of the Papacy” (12-12-15). Obviously, twenty arguments are easier to address than 205, but one hopes to see him defend his larger effort, which I disposed of over eight months ago now.

Here we will look at the other ten, more for entertainment than anything else, as the arguments that were already laughable in Part 1 become even more catastrophic in Part 2 (which is the “leftover” of the previous arguments).

I’m sure, then, since my arguments are so “laughable” and “catastrophic” according to Banzoli, that his takedown of my 205 refutations of his anti-Petrine / anti-papacy arguments will be appearing soon.

11. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen” the Christian “brethren” (Lk 22:32).

This in no way implies rule over the Church, because Jesus did not use a word to designate authority or leadership. The word Luke uses here is sterizo, which means “to strengthen, to make firm” (Strong’s #4741), and throughout the Bible we are taught that it is the duty of all of us to strengthen one another. 

Of course we are to do so, but this misses the point (yet another non sequitur: Banzoli’s stock-in-trade). The actual point is that only Peter “among the apostles” (technically meaning here the twelve disciples) is told to do this. It is this constant singling out of Peter that indicates his primacy among the disciples, and by analogy and the historical working-out of Petrine primacy, the pope’s primacy among the bishops.

There is a reason why Peter is portrayed as the leader of the disciples and the early Church in the NT (just as there is a reason for absolutely everything in the inspired, infallible revelation of the Bible), and that reason is his role as the prototype of the pope and his being the first pope.

The author of Hebrews says that it is the overall mission of Christians (not just Peter) to “strengthen the feeble hands and the feeble knees” (Heb. 12:12); James asks to “strengthen your hearts” (James 5:8); Paul says to “be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might” (Eph 6:10), to “comfort one another” (1 Thess 4:18) and to “Exhort one another and build one another up” (1 Thess 5:11).

Yep. This has nothing to do with my point, as explained. It would be nice if just one time, Banzoli actually comprehended, grasped, understood the nature of an argument that I made. That would be such a refreshing change. I think I’d go out and celebrate of that ever happened: take my wife to a play or something; even take my whole family (my treat!). A real cause for celebration . . .

Banzoli then uses an argument that he has brought up several times now: trying to explain away or rationalize all of these evidences of Petrine primacy:

Christ had predicted in the previous verse that Satan would tempt Peter (v. 31), as indeed he did, causing him to deny the Lord three times, as he says would shortly thereafter (v. 34). So, within this context, he says that, when all this was over, Peter would be used by God to strengthen his brothers . . . 

This “singular weakness of Peter” canard can’t be used for every single one of my fifty Petrine proofs (from which these twenty are drawn). Even if it is a factor at all (and it may have been, to a minor degree), it simply can’t explain away everything I have made note of. When Jesus called Peter the Rock and said He would build His Church upon Him, it wasn’t (by all indications in the immediate context) because Peter was weak and had to be given a “vote of confidence” from the Lord.

It was because Peter proclaimed that He was “the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16), to which Jesus replied: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17). And then He made him the Rock in the next verse.

Now, what does any of this have to do with Peter being weak or the one who temporarily lost his resolve (under the threat of possible death) to follow Jesus, denying Him? Absolutely nothing! Even those who don’t like Petrine primacy and despise the very notion of a papacy freely admit that it was Peter’s faith (before the Day of Pentecost, when all Christians were indwelt with the Holy Spirit) that led Jesus to change his name to Rock.

And true faith has nothing to do with the weaknesses that we also all have. Critics of Peter (who in effect represents the dreaded, detested  Catholicism) and those who run down things like my 50 Proofs, love to bring up the fact of Peter’s three denials.

As I pointed out elsewhere, that was a matter of a strictly temporary weakness or cowardice, under the threat of possible death, as one of Jesus’ followers. He made the denials, heard the cock crow, and then immediately “went out and wept bitterly” (Mt 26:75; Lk 22:62); “broke down and wept” (Mk 14:72); that is, he repented. The entire incident may have lasted no more than five or ten minutes.

Contrast that with Paul, who persecuted and actually killed who knows how many Christians, for who knows how long of a time (“ravaging the church”: Acts 8:3); who stood by “consenting” (Acts 8:1) when St. Stephen was stoned to death. It took God virtually forcing him to convert, with a dramatic vision, to stop the killing. This is why Paul described himself as “the foremost of sinners” (1 Tim 1:15), noting how he had “formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted” Jesus (1 Tim 1:13).

Which sin was worse, between those two? But both repented, and both were mightily used by God. Both were martyred (Paul by beheading, which takes half a second; Peter by being crucified — by his request — upside down: many hours of the most agonizing torture). Yet I never see Protestants like Banzoli arguing that God used Paul as he did only because Paul was such a notorious, murdering sinner before he became a Christian; therefore God told him (through Ananias) the great things he would do for the kingdom (“you will be a witness for him to all men”: Acts 22:15), to restore his confidence in himself.

That’s never heard; it’s only applied to Peter, and only — I submit — because we say he was the first pope. Thus, there exists an irrational bigotry towards Peter from anti-Catholics like Banzoli, or Jason Engwer: with whom I’ve gone through these discussions several times, too, whereas there is no similar animus towards Paul, even though (if we are to compare) he was a far greater sinner before his conversion to Christ.

12. St. Peter is the first to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).

That’s right, the logic is “Peter was the first to speak; therefore he was pope.” Believe me, this is literally how Dave tries to “prove” the papacy! . . . in Dave’s tiny mind, the fact that Peter was the first to speak at Pentecost makes him a pope, . . . [this] would automatically make any talkative person a leader – which is just plain stupid. . . . If being the first to speak were a criterion that necessarily identified a supreme leader, Moses would have taken the lead and spoken directly to the people and Pharaoh, instead of urging God that Aaron do it for him. . . . But Dave can’t understand something so simple, either because of obvious cognitive limitations or because of his traditional intellectual dishonesty. He really thinks that Peter being the first to speak on one occasion can only be explained by the fact that he is “pope”, which shows the extent to which he is committed to duping his readers and how he sees them only as putty; an amorphous, mindless mass that will trust any dumb argument without question. . . . it’s really hard to imagine how anyone would follow such a guy for any reason other than to laugh.

Of course (“cognitive limitations” or “intellectual dishonesty” or not), this is not my argument because (as seemingly always!) Banzoli has not comprehended what it is in the first place. So he caricatures and ridicules it. His goal is not to understand my arguments and provide rebuttals to them. Rather, he is always trying to “prove” that I am the dumbest person and apologist to ever walk the face of the earth (as we can readily observe above in his supercharged polemic). This is why he loses — and will continue to lose — every debate with me (by virtue of his vastly underestimating the ability of his opponent).

This particular argument is part of an overall cumulative argument (fifty such observations), that, taken together, lead one to believe that Peter was being portrayed as the leader of the disciples and the Church; that is, the first pope. No single argument is sufficient to do this by itself. Ron J. Bigalke (BS; MApol; MTS; MDiv; PhD), [Protestant] professor in apologetics and theology, explains the nature of cumulative apologetics arguments:

Cumulative case apologetics is a method that argues for the existence of God (or another complex truth claim) by demonstrating that it is the more reasonable view in correspondence with all obtainable evidence than some alternate hypothesis. As an argumentative methodology, the cumulative case would employ various arguments but none would be regarded resolutely. Each argument, however, results in clear and definite conclusions evidentially, which assert the probability of the existence of God. Various theistic arguments are intended as proofs that assert the probability of belief in the existence of God. For instance, arguments for the existence of God are not entirely formulated definitively; rather the argumentation is developed progressively, according to conditions of probability, until theism explains natural theology better than any alternative hypothesis and becomes more probable as truth than it not being true. (“Apologetics, Cumulative Case”, 25 November 2011)

I explained this in my 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy. And Banzoli read my explanation then, since he responded to this article of mine before I ever started refuting his materials (which was in May 2022):

The biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight, especially for those who are not hostile to the notion of the papacy from the outset. (my bolding and italics now)

In March 2002, I elaborated upon this in reply to Protestant apologist Jason Engwer, who had critiqued my 50 Proofs:

[T]hey are part of a long list of indications of the primacy of Peter. As I said, it is a “cumulative” argument. One doesn’t expect that all individual pieces of such an argument are “airtight” or conclusive in and of themselves, in isolation, by the nature of the case. I certainly don’t do so. I was probably assuming at the time that the sort of thing that Jason brings up was self-evident, because that was my own opinion (therefore, I thought it quite unnecessary to state it). Obviously, passages like the two above wouldn’t “logically lead to a papacy.” But they can quite plausibly be regarded as consistent with such a notion, as part of a demonstrable larger pattern, within which they do carry some force. It’s true that I should have made my logical and epistemological viewpoint on this more clear in the original paper, but I am happy to have the opportunity to do so now.

I made an analogy to biblical evidences for the Holy Trinity, which I had compiled two long lists of proofs for (one / two), twenty years earlier, in 1982:

Obviously, the Jews are quite familiar with Isaiah 9:6 and Zechariah 12:10, but they don’t see any indication of trinitarianism at all in them, nor do the three passages above “logically lead” to trinitarianism, if they are not interconnected with many, many other biblical evidences. Yet they are used as proof texts by Christians. No one claims that they are compelling by themselves; these sorts of “proofs” are used in the same way that my lesser Petrine evidences are used, as consistent with lots of other biblical data suggesting that conclusion. And Jews who reject trinitarianism beforehand as a form of blasphemy, will not see the relevance, let alone compulsion, of any of these indications, as their presuppositions do not allow them to interpret within that framework. Likewise, with many Protestants and the papacy and its biblical evidences.

I further explained my methodology:

I approached the Petrine list with the thought in mind: “Paul is obviously an important figure, but how much biblical material can one find with regard to Peter, which would be consistent with (not absolute proof of) a view that he was the head of the Church and the first pope?” Or, to put it another way (from the perspective of preexisting Catholic belief): “if Peter were indeed the leader of the Church, we would expect to find much material about his leadership role in the New Testament, at least in kernel form, if not explicitly.” . . .

As for the nature of a “cumulative argument,” what Jason doesn’t seem to understand is that all the various evidences become strong only as they are considered together (like many weak strands of twine which become a strong rope when they are woven together). . . . Apart from the first three evidences of the 50 being far more important (as indicated by the space given to them), many of the others are not particularly strong by themselves, but they demonstrate, I think, that there is much in the New Testament which is consistent with Petrine primacy, which is the developmental kernel of papal primacy.

The reader ought to note, also, that in the original paper I wasn’t claiming that these biblical indications proved “papal supremacy” or “papal infallibility” (i.e., the fully-developed papacy of recent times). . . .

I did not assert — didn’t get anywhere near claiming — that the papacy as understood after 1870 was present in full bloom in the pages of the New Testament. Quite the contrary; I stated that the doctrine was “derived from” Petrine primacy — as opposed to “proven in all its fully-developed aspects by the biblical presentation of Peter,” or some such thing –, and that it developed from the essential elements shown with regard to St. Peter in Scripture (just as, e.g., Chalcedonian trinitarianism developed from far simpler biblical and early patristic teachings on the Trinity).

I repeated much of this when I started refuting Banzoli’s 205 anti-Petrine arguments, so (barring a nonexistent memory) he is fully aware of it. Yet he continues to mock and ridicule various evidences, as if he has no inkling of how relatively little I claim for most of them. This is either outright dishonest or extremely shoddy scholarship on his part.

My overall argument in my 50 Proofs is far more subtle and sophisticated than Banzoli seems to understand. Or he does understand its nature and has simply chosen to misrepresent and caricature it in order to make me look like a simpleton and an idiot for his already anti-Catholic and “willing to believe anything and everything about Catholicism and its defenders, no matter how ridiculous” reading audience.

Banzoli even distorts and twists the specific point I made here, mocking the notion of Peter speaking first, even though he didn’t at the Jerusalem Council. It’s not the fact that he happened to be the first speaker on this occasion (as if that would prove anything); it’s the fact that he was the only one recorded to have spoken on the Day of Pentecost, which makes him “the first Christian to ‘preach the gospel’ in the Church era.” Certainly this has significance, and there is a reason that it happened and is recorded in the Bible. It’s the beginning of the Church, and at that time, Peter was clearly its leader.

So this is not a failed evidence. It works perfectly well, as long as one properly understands how much I would claim for it, in the context of the other 49 proofs. But if they make no attempt to comprehend and grasp that which they are critiquing, then we will get the asinine, vapid, fatuous analysis that he provided above, only making a fool of himself.

13. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).

Wow! Peter performed a miracle; therefore, Peter was pope! It is increasingly difficult to think that anyone reads this citizen’s articles without being for comic reasons… Again, if you have an evangelism group, be very careful about performing a miracle – you don’t want someone to identify you as the pope.

He repeats the same basic, elementary noncomprehension of the nature of each individual argument, per my explanation immediately above. He notes that Paul performed seven miracles in the book of Acts, to Peter’s four. But this is perfectly irrelevant; my point being that Peter being the first has a symbolic meaning, according to the nature of biblical portrayals.

As a matter of fact, we have no way of knowing whether the first miracle was really the one performed by Peter in Acts 3; all we know is that it was the first recorded miracle. 

That’s right, and this is a valid point. But this is part of my argument, too: there is a reason why Peter either performed the first or is the first person recorded as having done so.

Or maybe Dave thinks that only doing the “first” miracle is important,

Yes it is, insofar as it is viewed in conjunction with 49 other proofs: all leading to the same conclusion: Petrine primacy.

In summary, from the moment that Paul is converted, Luke focuses almost entirely on him, and Peter is practically forgotten.

Since Peter and Paul were the most important figures in first century Christianity, Luke devotes the first half of his book to Peter and the second to Paul: exactly as we would expect. Once need not pit them against each other. There is no warrant to use the polemical language of Peter being “forgotten.” His deeds and words were simply recorded first in the book and then Paul’s.

14. Peter is regarded by the common people as the leader of Christianity (Acts 5:15: “as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them.”).

It’s hard to know for sure whether it’s dishonesty or backwardness (probably a combination of the two, from what we know of him). Dave picks up a text that says Peter’s shadow healed, and says that makes him the “leader of Christianity.” If he weren’t so dishonest, I’d say it’s a serious case of psychiatric impairment. . . . it’s hard to know the line between stupidity and dishonesty. 

See my explanations above, under #12. Apparently, it’s impossible to have any honest differences with anti-Catholics, without being accused of being nuts (James White, James Swan, Steve Hays all having made this charge), as well as good ol’ dishonesty.

We see Banzoli (in his reply here and often elsewhere) constantly pitting Paul against Peter, in the same manner that Jason Engwer tried to do. I answered all of that years ago:

*
*

15. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first to exercise the “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38, 43). Paul’s missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

Dave’s ability to expose himself to ridicule is impressive. It even looks like he took a course on how to embarrass himself for free on the internet. I confess I have never seen anything like it before. . . . It really does sound like a five-year-old arguing . . . It is only in Dave Armstrong’s bewildered mind that whatever Peter does first is used as “proof” that he did it first because he was pope . . . In the end, anyone with a minimum of mental capacity is capable of realizing that these “arguments” are nothing more than crude, barbaric and senseless tricks to make Peter a pope at any cost – even if all logic and common sense have to be sacrificed in the process. Anything Peter does is used as “proof” of his primacy . . . and what others do is largely ignored, like the good con man that Dave is. If there are those who fall for this ruse, it’s only because his readers tend to be as ignorant as he is.

We often note and honor people who were the first to do something: the first to sail around the world, or to fly in an airplane, or the first to reach the North and South Poles, or to discover radioactivity, or to climb the highest mountain in the world (Mt. Everest) or walk on the moon. It would be reasonable to note that all these people were the “leaders” in their fields when they accomplished these things.

Likewise, there is nothing unreasonable in the slightest in making a cumulative argument about Petrine primacy which includes many items where Peter was the first, or first recorded to have done something important related to Christianity. This is a relevant factor, regardless of how much Banzoli wants to mock and ridicule, having not grasped the very nature of my overall argument in the first place. Solomon predicted such things in the tenth century BC:

Proverbs 29:9 (RSV) If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.

16. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out St. Peter for instruction in Christianity:

Acts 10:21-22 And Peter went down to the men and said, “I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for your coming?” [22] And they said, “Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house, and to hear what you have to say.”

That is, Peter is pope because an angel sent Cornelius to look for Peter. 

Nope. That isn’t my argument, which would accurately be described as: “Peter is so important in early Christianity that an angel sends an open-minded inquirer to him. This clearly suggests that (or is at the very least consistent with the notion that) Peter was the leader, which in turn suggests (or is at the very least consistent with the notion that) he was the first pope (as the first leader of the Church), when understood in conjunction with 49 other indications of his primacy, forming together a cumulative argument.”

17. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles into the fellowship of the Christian Catholic Church, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).

It is also based on the same logic already refuted in the penultimate argument, which is that if someone did something first, this someone must be superior to the others . . . 

See my answer under #15 above.

18. Peter presides over and is preeminent in the first Church-wide council of Christianity (Acts 15:7-11).

If the other arguments were simply silly, this one is an outright lie. It’s surreal that someone reads Acts 15 and still thinks that Peter led the council. Although Peter was present at the council, he neither opens nor closes it; he only speaks “after much discussion” (Acts 15:7), and after him the debate continues, with the speeches of Paul and Barnabas (v. 12). Who gives the final word (a typical attitude of those who preside over an assembly) is James, the brother of Jesus (vs. 13-20). His speech extends over 9 verses (vs. 13-21), four more than Peter’s (vs. 7-11). More importantly, the letter sent to the churches with the council’s decisions is based entirely on his words, not Peter’s: . . . 

James does most of the talking, James has the final word, James’ words are literally the council’s decisions (copied almost directly from what he said ) , but even so, in this troubled mind, it is Peter who “presides and is pre-eminent” in the council. It just reinforces the fact that his mind is so conditioned to deception and used to lying that it does it out of habit, even when all the evidence weighs to the contrary.
 
Apologists like Dave aren’t the least bit concerned about what the text says; they are only concerned with how to distort it to use it in favor of their previous views, to which they are psychologically conditioned. So, instead of doing exegesis, which is extracting from the text what it actually says, all they know is doing eisegesis – when someone tries to graft their own ideas into the text, even if the text doesn’t say any of that. So if a verse doesn’t say what Dave would like it to say, he tortures him until he says what he wants to hear. This is how Catholic apologetics works as a whole, which Dave exemplifies so well.

From Acts 15, we learn that “after there was much debate, Peter rose” to address the assembly (15:7). The Bible records his speech, which goes on for five verses. He was the first to speak definitively, and with authority. Peter claimed authority in a special way: “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe” (15:7). Peter sternly rebuked the opposing view of strict observance of ceremonial law: “Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” (15:10).
*
After Peter spoke, the debate was essentially over, and it’s reported that “all the assembly kept silence” (15:12). Paul and Barnabas speak next, not making authoritative pronouncements, but confirming Peter’s exposition, speaking about “signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles” (15:12). Then when James speaks, he refers right back to what “Simeon [Peter] has related” (15:14). James did not hand down the main decree or add anything new to what Peter had already proclaimed. To me, this suggests that Peter’s talk was central and definitive. James speaking last could easily be explained by the fact that he was the bishop of Jerusalem and therefore the “host.” Those who talked after Peter did not disagree with his decision, and merely confirmed it (15:12-21).
*
James states, “Therefore my judgment …” but this does not prove that he presided, as anyone could say that (similar to saying, “my opinion is …”). The judgment was reached by consensus (“it seemed good to the apostles and elders, with the whole Church” in 15:22; “it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord” in 15:25; “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” in 15:28; cf. 16:4). This, too, is exactly like Catholic councils throughout history: they decide matters as a group, yet popes preside. Nothing in this text suggests anything other than St. Peter being the leader.
*
Peter indeed had already received a relevant revelation, related to the council. God gave him a vision of the cleanness of all foods (contrary to the Jewish Law: see Acts 10:9-16). Peter is already learning about the relaxation of Jewish dietary laws, and is eating with uncircumcised men, and is ready to proclaim the gospel widely to the Gentiles (Acts 10 and 11). This was the second major decision of the Jerusalem Council, and Peter referred to his experiences with the Gentiles at the council (Acts 15:7-11). The council then decided — with regard to food –, to prohibit only that which “has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled” (15:29).
*
Paul is not shown as having any special authority in the council. (Many think he had more authority in the early Church than Peter). Instead, we learn that he and Barnabas “were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question” (15:2). Paul and Barnabas merely give report of their experiences (15:12) and then they are sent by the council to report what had been decided (15:25, 30; 16:4).

This raises several questions for Protestants. When was the last council held a particular location, with the elders of the entire Church — at that time, Paul and Peter and others — binding for Protestant Christians at large in other locations, far away? Don’t Protestants always have the right to say that it was in error, since Scripture alone is their rule of faith? After all, that’s precisely what Luther said (councils can err, so he went by Scripture and plain reason), so why couldn’t Christians reject the decisions of Acts 15 and defy Paul’s injunction, described in Acts 16:4? Could or should a Protestant dissent from the decisions of the Jerusalem council (i.e., before portions of it became part of the New Testament? Martin Luther’s “councils err” notion doesn’t apply to it?

Instead, Paul and Timothy traveled “through the cities” (in Turkey; then called Asia Minor) and “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.” Thus Paul proclaimed teaching that was binding, that was formulated by Peter as the leader of the first Christian council in history.

So there we have two competing interpretations of this council. Let the reader decide which is more plausible and accurate and true to the biblical account.

Banzoli shows himself utterly incapable of s=understanding the nature and subtlety of #19, so I won’t even bother repeating his inane “replies”; my patience hanging by the thinnest of threads by now, and utterly sustained only by God’s merciful grace.

20. St. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances.

What Dave forgot to inform his readers (he forgot nothing, he left it out of purpose to bait them) is that Paul (and “Saul”, his other name) is mentioned by name no less than 240 times (not counting all the times appearing by the pronoun “he” and the like). . . . This is the typical dishonesty of Catholic apologetics and even more typical of Dave Armstrong, . . . he leaves not the slightest margin of doubt that he is dishonest.

What Banzoli forgot to inform his readers is that his argument is not a response to mine. I was comparing the mention of Peter’s name compared to the other disciples, meaning the original twelve disciples. Paul was not one of these, so his example is utterly irrelevant to my point, which is (as throughout my 50 Proofs) that Peter is presented as a leader of the disciples, therefore, by logical extension and analogy and the usual typological and prototypical understanding of Holy Scripture, he is to be regarded as the leader of the Church: particularly since Jesus said He would build His Church upon the Rock of Peter.

As we read the NT, it seems clear that Peter was more prominent than the other eleven disciples, 

Exactly! At last Banzoli actually makes some sense, and this is precisely what I was trying to establish with my 50 Proofs, so he winds up conceding the argument I made there. I wrote, “The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically based, and is derived from the evident primacy of St. Peter among the apostles.” What I stated was “evident” Banzoli agrees is “clear.”  He obviously then denies that this primacy suggests the papacy, but that becomes a separate argument of a different epistemological nature and with different parameters and specifics.

He would have to understand my initial argument before we went on to that stage, but he shows no signs of doing so. He’s not even aware that he just conceded, above, the central point of my 50 Proofs. Peter, in his own words, “was more prominent than the other eleven disciples”. Thus far, we agree. I go on to say that this means something, that it has further implications, according to biblical prototypical and typological thinking, and that what we Catholics conclude from it is that Peter is being presented as the first leader of the Church: the first pope.

Of course that can be discussed and disagreed about, like any other topic (and has been these past 500 years), but in order to sensibly, rationally do so, those who disagree with my overall argument and its particulars, construed within the larger framework, must first understand both. Banzoli does not. Therefore, mostly what he does is mock and reiterate how supposedly stupid and/or dishonest I am, whereas I simply make my argument, presented so that anyone can make up their own mind as to whether I am onto something in this line of thinking or not.

Armstrong . . . exposes like no one else the notorious weakness of Catholic apologetics, with its famous poverty of arguments that leads it to manipulate the simplest texts in the most bizarre way possible. Although it serves as a source of entertainment, it is at the same time a sad and shocking portrait, which makes us reflect a lot on the extent to which a human being is capable of going to support his ideological fanaticism. Dave’s articles are all of these things at once, blending the comic with the surreal, and bringing out the worst in apologetics.

May God bless Lucas Banzoli with all good things, and bring him into the knowledge that Jesus is God, so that he can come back to Christianity again. He’s got the zeal in spades; he just needs God’s saving grace and the knowledge of what is true. If Paul could come to the true Jesus and become one of the greatest Christians ever, Banzoli can be made to see that Jesus is God, and to give up his unbiblical view of the soul, that caused him to reject the divinity of Jesus. Please pray for him and for God to fill him with His Spirit and educate and correct him where he is wrong.

He thinks I am his enemy and that I hate him. I’m not and I don’t. I want the best for him. I want him to be saved. This is what all Christians are commanded to do with regard to all people and I try my best, with God’s help and by His grace, to maintain this outlook. If he has made himself my enemy, then I love him all the more, according to Jesus’ command. One way to love is to correct someone when they are in theological error. That’s what I am educated to do as an apologist.

It does no one any good at all to believe in falsehood, and writers like Banzoli will be responsible for those whom they lead astray: “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1). I tremble over that verse every time my fingers touch my keyboard, in order to teach. 

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Churchor better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologistand February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Detail of Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (1481-82) by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Brazilian anti-Catholic apologist and polemicist Lucas Banzoli responded to my “20 Biblical Proofs for the Papacy”. This is Part II of my systematic counter-reply.

***

February 13, 2023

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster (active on and off) for six blogs. He has many videos on YouTube.

This is my 60th refutation of Banzoli’s writings. For almost half a year (5-25-22 to 11-12-22) he didn’t write one single word in reply, because my articles were deemed to be “without exception poor, superficial and weak . . . only a severely cognitively impaired person would be inclined to take” them “seriously.” Despite this childish rationalizing, he found my refutations so “entertaining” that he bravely decided to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.”

He has now replied to me 15 times (the last one dated 2-9-23). I disposed of the main themes of his slanderous insults in several Facebook posts under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page. I plan (by God’s grace) to ignore the insults henceforth, and heartily thank him for these innumerable blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).

Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in blue. Words from past replies of mine to him will be in green.

*****

This is my reply to Lucas Banzoli’s article, “Refutando as “20 maiores provas bíblicas” que Dave encontrou do papado de Pedro (Parte 1)” [Refuting the “20 Greatest Biblical Proofs” Dave Found for the Papacy of Peter (Part 1)] (1-22-23). Despite his heroic resolve to refute any and all of my [now 60] critiques of his arguments “one by one,” for some odd reason he chose to pass over my massive four-part counter-reply, “Reply to Lucas Banzoli’s 205 Potshots at St. Peter” (5-26-22) and to concentrate on my older article (not directed towards him): “Top Twenty Biblical Proofs for the Office of the Papacy” (12-12-15). Obviously, twenty arguments are easier to address than 205, but one hopes to see him defend his larger effort, which I disposed of over eight months ago now.

1. Matthew 16:18 (RSV) And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

The rock (Greek, petra) is St. Peter himself, not his faith. Jesus is the Architect who “builds.” Today, the overwhelming consensus of biblical commentators of all stripes favors this traditional Catholic understanding. St. Peter is the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family, but not founder of the Church; administrator, but not Lord of the Church.

I admire the effort, but there are several problems with this argument. First: the text says “you are Peter”, not “you are pope”. 

That’s perfectly irrelevant. A concept can be present in a passage without having a word usually associated with it. The classic example is the absence in the NT of the word “Trinity.” Apologists like myself have provided hundreds of biblical proofs of the Holy Trinity and deity of Christ. The lack the word “Trinity” is no argument against any of them. In this instance, the historical debate is whether Jesus called Peter himself the “Rock” and built His Church upon him (obviously as its human, earthly leader), or whether it was merely his faith (as Protestants has historically tried to argue, but much less so now).

Even if the text really were to be understood in the sense that Dave wants and needs (i.e., that Peter was the “rock” of the text in question), that would still not make Peter a pope, and the proof of this is what he claims himself when he says that “biblical commentators of all stripes” defend this interpretation. If non-Catholics defend this, it is because the text does not prove any papacy (otherwise, they would be Catholics too).

It’s not the entire papacy that can be proven from this passage (let’s not get ahead of ourselves), but merely one key aspect of it: whether the Church was built “upon” Peter and whether he was the leader in the early Church. Papal succession, or an institutional papacy is a separate, entirely different argument, that I have also dealt with: The Biblical Argument for Papal Succession [12-12-15]; Papal Succession: A Straightforward Biblical Argument [4-28-17].

Many of the very best Protestant commentators (like D. A. Carson and R. T. France) exegete the passage in the same manner that Catholics today do. See: Protestant Scholars on Matthew 16:16-19 (Nicholas Hardesty) [9-4-06]. This is important to note because it proves that it’s not merely “Catholic bias” that causes someone to interpret the passage in terms of Peter being the Rock.

Just to cite one example, in another text Paul is not just called a “rock”, but actually the leader of the “sect of the Nazarenes”, as Christians were called (Acts 24:5), and yet no one considers Paul a “pope”.

In that instance, it is Tertul’lus, spokesman for the high priest Anani’as who made this judgment (rather than Jesus Himself saying that He will build His Church on Peter the Rock), and he didn’t say (in RSV) that Paul was “the ringleader” of Christians, but “a ringleader.” This makes a huge difference. “A ringleader” is not the head or supreme leader.

In over thirty English versions for Acts 24:5, all have “a ringleader” or “a leader” with the exception of just one, which has “the ringleader”: as Banzoli argues. And that version is the MSG, or The Message: surely not one of the major English translations. It’s on the extreme end of the spectrum of paraphrased translations and uses contemporary American slang. To get an idea of what it’s like, here is the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6:7-13):

Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what’s best—
as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You’re in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You’re ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes.

Okay! Not my kind of Bible, to be sure (in 2014 I actually edited a New Testament derived from five other versions that sought to maintain Victorian “high” British language). But this is the only one in a long list that translated the way Banzoli thinks this text should be rendered. Not impressive . . .

Apparently, in the mid-60s AD, the Jews were not yet aware that Peter was the leader of the Church, and Paul only a subordinate

They may or may not have known who the leader was, though Peter was confronting them as the ostensible leader before Paul ever did (Acts 4:1-13), and they may have thought that Stephen was the leader before they stoned him to death (Acts 6-7). That’s neither here nor there, in the final analysis. The important thing is the person that Jesus decided to make the leader of Christians.

The problem is compounded when we consider that the vast majority of Church Fathers – who for Dave were good Roman Catholics – considered the stone to be Jesus or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ, not Peter himself 

Patristic exegesis of texts changes or develops through the centuries. Catholics are not bound to their interpretations (or to hardly any binding exegetical interpretations at all, for that matter).

Suffice it to say that the problem goes beyond the bad exegesis of the text itself, because the Catholic interpretation subverts the scheme present throughout the NT, where Jesus is always and invariably the rock on which all Christians (including Peter) are built (Col. 2:6-7; Rom 9:32-33; 1Co 10:4; Mk 12:10; Matt 21:42; Acts 4:11). Peter himself said that Jesus is “the chief stone” (1Pe 2:7) and that we are “living stones” built on his foundation (1Pe 2:4-7). And to put an end to any discussion, Paul said that “no one can lay any foundation other than what is already laid, which is Jesus Christ ” (1Co 3:11). That is, there is only one foundation, and that foundation is Jesus. It’s impossible to be clearer.

I disposed of this typically “either/or” false dichotomy (very typical in Protestant thinking) in this article: Can Christ & Peter Both be “Rocks”? [4-21-22].

It is the same analogy of the body, present in so many biblical texts that speak of the Church as the “body” (Col 2:17; 1Co 12:12, 27; Eph 3:6, 5:23) and of Christ as the “head ” (Eph 1:22, 4:15, 5:23; Col 1:18; 1Co 11:3), indicating authority and government.

He is ultimately the head, but He understood that the Church also needs live, flesh-and-blood leaders, in order to bring about order and a hierarchical structure, to determine true doctrine. God spoke through human beings all through history (Moses and the prophets being obvious examples).

Thus, to say that Peter is the rock on which the Church is built is more than ignoring the most basic principle of biblical hermeneutics (that “the Bible interprets the Bible”, that is, that the clearest texts shed light on the more obscure); it is to infer that Peter is above Christ in the government of the Church, which is nothing more than blasphemy . . . [this] is to place the creature above the Creator – something the Papists understand well.

But no informed Catholic has ever said such an idiotic thing, so this is just one of Banzoli’s many straw men.

2. Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .

The “power of the keys” (according to many Bible commentators) has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). This entails the use of excommunication, absolution, imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house” (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15, 20-21).

the Isaiah text says “And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” (Is 22:22). Although many Catholics apply this text to Peter, it actually refers to Jesus, as we see in the parallel reading of Revelation

There are lots of dual applications in Scripture (as I explained at length to an atheist). The immediate application in Isaiah 22:22 (this is the exegesis that Banzoli constantly calls for) is to Eliakim (22:20). That’s the reason why Catholics cite this. It shows that a man can have a very high administrative office, helping the king (the analogy to God). Likewise, popes help administer God’s will for His Church, with the protection of the Holy Spirit.

It is true that Dave, unlike other Catholic apologists, does not explicitly say that Peter has the keys cited in these texts, 

I do say that, because (again) it was Jesus Who gave them to him.

Conclusion: in his deliberate attempt to confuse the reader, 

Note the almost ubiquitous charge that I am a deliberately dishonest deceiver and don’t truly believe in what I write about and defend. I usually ignore the insults (per what I stated in the standard introduction above), but I wanted to provide readers with just one example of hundreds that I have to constantly ignore: sort of like a billion mosquitoes . . .

Needless to say, lies like these poison any hope of true dialogue (which presupposes the sincerity and good will of the opponent). Banzoli makes it impossible. I only reply to him in order to prove to observers of the exchange how terrible and unworthy of belief his (sincerely held) arguments are.

Dave quotes texts that . . . say nothing about keys,

Isaiah 22 certainly discusses “keys” as a symbol of administrative leadership. Many reputable Protestant commentators note that this was the reference Jesus was making in Matthew 16:19.

He literally tries to take the texts that say that Jesus has the keys in the sense of authority

Isaiah 22 is not about Jesus. It’s about Eliakim. The great Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce observed:

And what about the “keys of the kingdom”? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

and apply them to Peter (as if Peter has the keys/authority that Jesus has, which is not even a bad argument, but a blasphemy indeed).

It’s applied analogically to Peter by Jesus Himself. If Jesus wills to give Peter these “keys” who are we to second-guess Him? But in effect, that’s what Banzoli is forced to do, because he has to take an “anti-Peter” / “anti-Catholic” view of the passage. It’s obviously not opposed to Jesus, if Jesus Himself wills the thing. But that would actually be logical (not Banzoli’s strong suit).

And I say that not as a bald insult, but as the studied determination based on my observation of his arguments, in the course of 60 critiques. He’s just not very good at logical thinking or at debating. That’s why he has to constantly insult, to sort of “fill in the blanks.”

If we were as dishonest as Dave and used the very same criteria that he uses in this fruit salad of biblical texts, we could conclude that Peter also has the keys of death and Hades, since Jesus said that “I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. (Rev 1:18),

Sheer nonsense. We can’t say that because the parallel that Jesus drew from, in giving Peter the keys, — Isaiah 22 –, doesn’t say it. Revelation 1:18 is about drawing from the passage (which happens all the time in Scripture: it’s called “types and shadows”) and making further application of it to Jesus. Therefore, this aspect is not one that Peter possesses.

for Dave any “key ” is the same “key” and does the same thing. This is Armstrong’s crude level of exegesis, . . .

This is an example of one of many of Banzoli’s fantasies pulled out of a hat, which purport to “explain” how I think (when in fact I never thought this at any time). The analogical argument from Isaiah 22 is found in many many Protestant commentaries. It’s not merely a “Catholic thing.”

The question is, do we really have a text analogous to Matthew 16:19 that would serve to shed light on it? And the answer is just two chapters later, in Matthew 18:18: 

“Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18 )

By “you”, Jesus meant all twelve apostles (Peter included, but not just him). Note that the language is exactly the same as in Matthew 16:19 . . . In other words, we are dealing here with exactly the same thing. Jesus gave to Peter the same as he gave to all the disciples, not some special or differentiated burden from others, which would put him above them.

The point (which Banzoli sadly misses so often) is that Peter receives the keys in a preeminent sense as the leader. He is given them as an individual (and the only person who was said to receive them; the analogy to Isaiah 22); the others in Matthew 18:18 are a collective.

This is exactly analogous to popes and bishops in the Catholic Church. Bishops can bind and loose in their own domain, but popes can do it over the entire Church, in certain situations. And popes in ecumenical councils have a veto power, or power to modify, over the resolutions of bishops.

The context has nothing to do with universal jurisdiction over the entire Church, but only speaks of excommunication: “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Mt 18:17).

Matthew 18:17 is not the “context” of Matthew 16:19 at all. It’s absurd and dumbfounded to claim so. The latter was uttered at Caesarea Philippi, which is 25 miles north of the Sea of Galilee, where Capernaum was (Mt 17:24), where the sayings of Matthew 18 took place. In-between, Jesus and the disciples went to the mount of transfiguration (Mt 17:1-2), which was Mt. Tabor: 55 miles away from Caesarea Philippi and thirty miles from Capernaum.

Thus, in-between the two sayings, there were travels of 55 miles to the transfiguration, and then another 30 to Capernaum (I visited all three sites myself in 2014). Yet Banzoli claims that the “context” of Matthew 16:19 is Matthew 18:17. This is sheer nonsense.

Paul ordered excommunication on one occasion (1 Cor 5:5), which proves that (1) this was not the prerogative of a pope,

It was not only his prerogative then and it isn’t now in the Catholic Church. They can be issued by bishops (for their dioceses); and even from regular prelates for religious orders (but priests cannot). There is also such a thing as automatic excommunication for very grave sins.

and (2) Matthew 18:18 is not limited to just the twelve (although Jesus spoke to the twelve), just as Matthew 16:19 is not limited to just Peter (although Jesus did speak to Peter).

I agree! Matthew 18:18 is issued by logical extension to all future bishops, just as Matthew 16:19 is to all future popes, represented by the first pope appointed by Jesus: St. Peter.

If the same words that were addressed to Peter were also addressed to all twelve, and if the concept to which they refer applies beyond the twelve, it is obvious that Jesus was nowhere near saying anything that would make Peter a “pope” or anything close to that.

But they were not completely the same words. Only Peter was given the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” according to the inspired Bible.

Banzoli reiterates the same nonsense that I have just refuted in his next section, so I need not spend any further time on that.

4. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new, solemnly conferred name, Rock, (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

God also changed her name from “Sarai” to “Sarah”. Does it mean Sarah became a pope?

I guess Banzoli missed my qualifier, “among the apostles.” Because of that he goes on to make one of his famous (or infamous) non sequiturs. Changes of name in the Bible denote significance. Therefore, the insinuation is that Peter was the most significant (i.e., the leader of) the original twelve disciples: who were clearly as a group the leaders of early, post-Pentecost Christianity.

If only Jesus had changed Simon’s name to something that meant “leader” or “boss” or “father” (hence the word “pope”), we might even be open to discussion.

Being the “Rock” upon which Jesus built His Church is quite sufficient for the purpose.

5. St. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last. This means something.

If the fact that Peter is cited first in lists of disciples means that he was pope, what about when Peter is not cited first in texts that mention someone outside the Twelve? Let’s see an example: 

“and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, . . .” (Galatians 2:9)

Yeah, I addressed that: Did St. Paul Seek St. Peter’s Approval for His Ministry? (+ Does The Word Order in Galatians 2:9 Suggest a Lowering of Peter’s Primacy?) [4-27-17 and 9-4-17].

Note, first, that Peter is called a pillar, not a foundation – which in itself already refutes the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18, that Peter is the very foundation of the Church.

It’s not even an interpretation; Jesus said it! A “rock” upon which something else is built is a foundation. That’s why it is an important discussion to determine if Peter himself was the rock, or just his faith.

And even “being the most prominent” is very different from being “pope”, which means ruling over others. In this sense, Christ himself was clear in saying that “ call no one on earth your father, for one is your Father, who is in heaven” (Mt 23:9), which is where the term “pope” comes from.

See: Biblical Evidence Regarding Calling Priests “Father” [2-24-16].

It is only in Dave’s not-quite-sober mind that the fact that someone is mentioned first must necessarily mean that he is more important – or, worse still, that he exercises a papacy over all others, with “full, supreme and universal power”, as the Catholic catechism says (#882). The kind of argument that’s far more facetious than childish, . . .

See: St. Peter Listed First in Lists of Disciples: A Debate (vs. Jason Engwer) [10-12-20].

7. Peter was the first apostle to enter the empty tomb of the risen Jesus (Jn 20:6).

Peter wasn’t even the first to enter the tomb, because if Dave went back just five verses, he would find that Mary Magdalene got to the tomb before him (John 20:1). . . . I still don’t know how no Catholic authority (a bishop, a cardinal or the pope himself) didn’t realize Dave’s genius and elevated Magdalene to the rank of popess. 

See that word “enter” above, in my statement? It means something. John 20:1 never states that Mary Magdalene entered the tomb. She may have, but we would never be able to determine that from this text alone.

9. Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17: “Feed my lambs . . . Tend my sheep . . . feed my sheep.”), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (e.g., Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:1-2).

Nowhere in the text does Peter call the “Supreme Shepherd”. This is again Dave putting his daydreams into the text, rather than extracting from the text simply what the text says.

What do we call the folks who feed and tend sheep? Why, it’s shepherd! DUH!!!! Jesus is commissioning Peter to tend to His sheep (i.e., Christians). That is precisely being Jesus’ chief shepherd. Jesus says this to no other of His disciples.

To make matters worse, in 1 Peter 5:1-2, Peter himself explicitly says that “I do so as an elder like them”, not as a superior, as Dave claims. If he was right in his thesis that John 21:15-17 refers to a “Supreme Shepherd” and in these other texts only to “subordinate shepherds”, Peter would have said that “I do so in the capacity of a Supreme Shepherd above them”, and not “an elder like them”. 

Exactly! Just like Jesus said, “For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve” (Mk 10:45). Jesus washed their feet, and said, “No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends,” (John 15:15) and “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave” (Mt 20:25-27).

St. Peter, then, is quite obviously following Jesus’ example of humility. But I suppose that is too complex and spiritual and biblical for Banzoli to grasp. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have made such a stupid “argument.”

to say that there is another “Supreme Shepherd” besides Jesus is more than saying what no text says: it is blasphemy, which tries to rob Christ of his place and give it to Peter (and, worse than that, to popes “by logical extension”!).

I didn’t claim that. I referred to Peter as “the Chief Shepherd after Himself.”

This is why the pope calls himself the vicar (literally “substitute”) of Christ, in a supreme example of the usurpation of the one who is called the only high priest (or high priest) of Christians (cf. Heb 4:14, 6: 20, 8:1, 8:6, 9:11, 10:21).

It’s the sort of language (agents, ambassadors, etc.) that Jesus Himself used, in referring to His disciples (the word “disciple” itself is not far in meaning from “vicar”):

Matthew 10:40 He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.

John 13:20 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me.

We also see instances of radical identification with Jesus, such as the term “Body of Christ” for the Church, or St. Paul partaking in Christ’s afflictions (Col 2:8; cf. 2 Cor 1:5-7, 4:10, 11:23-30; Gal 6:17), or our “suffering with Christ” (Rom 8:17; 1 Cor 15:31; 2 Cor 6:9; Gal 2:20; Phil 3:10; 1 Pet 4:1, 13).

Where’s the beef, then? Jesus routinely refers to something highly akin to “vicar” in these statements (and the Apostle Paul picks up on the motif in a big way). So the pope represents Christ to the world, in a particularly visible, compelling fashion. This is not outrageous blasphemy; it is straightforward biblical usage. Who is being more “biblical”?

Go to Part II: 20 Biblical Proofs for the Papacy, Pt. II (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [2-13-23]

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Detail of Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (1481-82) by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist & apologist Lucas Banzoli takes on my “20 Biblical Proofs for the Papacy”, and I offer a systematic, comprehensive counter-reply.

***

February 9, 2023

In Which Our Quixotic Anti-Catholic Warrior Desperately Savages Several Highly Reputable English Bible Translations in Order to “Prove” That Mary Thought Jesus was Out of His Mind

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster (active on and off) for six blogs. He has many videos on YouTube.

This is my 59th refutation of Banzoli’s writings. For almost half a year (5-25-22 to 11-12-22) he didn’t write one single word in reply, because my articles were deemed to be “without exception poor, superficial and weak . . . only a severely cognitively impaired person would be inclined to take” them “seriously.” Despite this childish rationalizing, he found my refutations so “entertaining” that he bravely decided to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.”

He has now replied to me 15 times (the last one dated 2-9-23). I disposed of the main themes of his slanderous insults in several Facebook posts under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page. I plan (by God’s grace) to ignore the insults henceforth, and heartily thank him for these innumerable blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).

Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in blue. Words from past replies of mine to him will be in green.

*****

This is my reply to a portion of Lucas Banzoli’s article, “Maria e os irmãos de Jesus achavam que ele estava louco? (Resposta a Dave Armstrong)” [Did Mary and Jesus’ brothers think he was crazy? (Reply to Dave Armstrong)] (12-30-22). It was purportedly a “reply” to my article, “Did Mary Sin By Thinking Jesus was Crazy? (vs. Lucas Banzoli)” (9-8-22).

The crux of the dispute is Mark 3:21. Some well-known English translations render it as follows:

NIV When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

ESV And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”

NASB And when His own people heard about this, they came out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, “He has lost His senses.”

KJV And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.

Douay-Rheims (Catholic) And when his friends had heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him. For they said: He is become mad.

The problem to be solved is exactly which people the “they” in all of the above Bibles refers to. Banzoli asserts that it refers to Jesus’ own family, including His mother Mary. Others believe it is referring to the “usual suspect” enemies of Jesus, such as those described in the next verse:

Mark 3:22 (RSV) And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Be-el’zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.”

It should be noted that the Blessed Virgin Mary is not mentioned in the immediate context. She is mentioned ten verses later, after an indeterminate period of time:

Mark 3:31 (RSV) And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him.

The “came” seems to me to mean that Mary was not present in the earlier verse when His “friends” or “own people” or “family” came to “seize” (ESV) Him. Nor does “called him” have the same connotation as “taking charge” or “seizing” or “taking custody” or “laying hold” of Him, which all virtually imply a forceful move, against Jesus’ own will. When she is referred to it seems to be — at least prima facie — a different scenario altogether.

One doesn’t say, for example, “I seized my wife from watching the Grammy Awards and she voluntarily came with me.” It’s two different things; seemingly mutually exclusive. If someone agrees to leave a place, they don’t have to be “seized.” They simply walk away. But this argument is a new thought that I had just now. My original argument was an appeal to several Bible translations that have “people” rather than “they”: which means that they thought — in their scholarly opinions — that the crowds thought Jesus was crazy, not His family or friends. Here they are:

RSV And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, “He is beside himself.”

NRSV When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, “He has gone out of his mind.”

Phillips . . . for people were saying, “He must be mad!”

NEB . . . for people were saying that he was out of his mind.

Good News / (TEV) When his family heard about it, they set out to take charge of him, because people were saying, “He’s gone mad!”

Moffatt . . . . . . for men were saying, “He is out of his mind.”

Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) . . . They went to get him because people said he was crazy.

Mounce Reverse Interlinear . . . for people were saying, “He is out of his mind.”

This clearly separates Jesus’ family, including His mother, from those who thought He was (take your pick) beside himself, out of his mind, mad, or crazy. That’s what all these scholars who translated these eight versions of the Bible thought: how they determined in their knowledge of Greek and English, that the passage was best interpreted and understood.

Now, the amazing thing is that Banzoli chose not to interact with this legitimate difference of opinion among significant and important Bible translations (which the first four above certainly are; the last four much less so, but still legitimate), but rather, to simply dismiss them out-of-hand and trash them with rank insults and condescension (precisely as he always treats me!). Apparently he routinely does this with anyone who dares to disagree with his sublime and unquestionable opinions.

They must be incompetent or dishonest or both, and ignoramuses, imbeciles, and idiots. They can’t possibly have an honest, sincere, different opinion from what he holds. The very fact that they disagree with the Great and Unconquerable Banzoli (sounds like a circus trapeze act!) is absolute proof that they are deceiving morons and sophists: intent on leading people astray. [note: I think Banzoli is sincere, though I reserve the right to say that he is lying in some specific instances, when it concerns me or something I have written].

I think this (among many many other outbursts and goofy ideas, including thinking that Jesus could vanish into nonexistence when He died and then somehow raise Himself from the dead while not existing) removes him from the realm of serious apologetics or theological thinking. He has lost all credibility. I only deal with him because he is leading many people astray; out of love for them. If he is eventually persuaded of anything, great. But by all indications it’s exceedingly unlikely.

The RSV or Revised Standard Version (the Bible I myself use in almost all of my articles and books) is very widely recognized — by Catholics and Protestants, and Englishmen and Americans alike — as one of the best modern translations in English. It’s almost certainly the most influential and most-used in the last seventy years, besides the King James Version, which has been uniquely and immensely influential these past 400+ years. The great Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce (I have twelve of his books in my own personal library) wrote about it:

For the English-speaking world as a whole there is no modern version of the Bible which comes so near as the R.S.V. does to making the all-purpose provision which the A.V. [KJV] made for so many years. (History of the Bible in English, Oxford University Press, 3rd ed., 1978, 203)

The NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) is a revision of the RSV, and also widely used and respected, and is the version most preferred by Bible scholars.

The Wikipedia article on the NEB (New English Bible) stated:

Because of its scholarly translators, the New English Bible has been considered one of the more important translations of the Bible to be produced following the Second World War. Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce declared that “To the sponsors and translators of the New English Bible the English speaking world owes an immense debt. They have given us a version which is contemporary in idiom, up-to-date in scholarship, attractive, and at times exciting in content…”

The Phillips version of the New Testament (translated by the Anglican priest J. B. Phillips) is also widely regarded as perhaps the best English paraphrase or “dynamic equivalent” version of the New Testament. Bruce writes glowingly of it: particularly its translation of Paul’s epistles:

Undoubtedly, of all modern English translations of the New Testament epistles, this is one of the best — perhaps actually the best — for the ordinary reader. The reader who has never paid much attention to Paul’s writings, and finds them dull and sometimes unintelligible in the older versions, would be well advised to read them through in Dr Phillips’ version. (Ibid., 223)

Please keep in mind the stature of these four translations and the high regard in which they are widely held by all sorts of Christians, as I now document what Banzoli says about them and any version that dared to use the word “people” in Mark 3:21, against the wishes of Infallible Banzoli, who alone has the final say on proper Bible translations (despite knowing neither Greek nor Hebrew).

He played the same ludicrous anti-scholar / anti-Bible translator game in another recent article, where he argued that “neither of the two Greek words used in 1 Timothy 3:15 mean “foundation,” . . . it would not make the slightest sense that Paul would say that the church (that is, Christians) are the “foundation” of the truth, . . . Dave . . . fails miserably to prove . . . that the text speaks of being the “foundation” of the truth, . . . 1st Timothy 3:15 does not speak of “foundation”. . .” I then proceeded to document how 24 English translations chose the rendering of foundation or foundation-stone in 1 Timothy 3:15. What was the result of that? Well, King Solomon observed over 2900 years ago: “Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you.” Guess which reaction Banzoli exhibited?

But back to our present topic. Banzoli opined about any Bible translation that was different from his own preference:

We now come to one of the funniest parts of the article, the one where Dave starts desperately hunting down half a dozen BLATANTLY ADULTERATED translations in the most shameless way, to use to his advantage without informing his readers that those translations shamefully adulterate the Greek. I wonder how much time he must have spent looking for these translations, since none of them is a known or reputable translation, and all the minimally serious versions (including the Catholic ones) translate correctlyThe urge to hunt for “evidence” in his favor goes so far that any crap will do, literally. (capitals his own and my bolding throughout) . . .

What all these translations have in common, besides their total lack of reputation, is the addition of the word people (“people”) to the text, to change the meaning of the text as Dave wants and needs it. It is the same kind of maneuver that the sects make to include their false doctrines in the Bible, without worrying about the threats that God himself directed to those who dare to do this type of thing:

Revelation 22:18-19 (RSV) I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, [19] and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. . . . 

Dave doesn’t seem to understand that not a single word can be taken away or added by dishonest people like him (or maybe he’s eager to receive the plagues described in the text). And the worst thing is that I went to research some of these translations and they are really scorned for the poor level they have. . . . 

As I noted, I claim that four of the eight are quite reputable and influential. Banzoli didn’t assert that only some of the eight were “crap” and not even “minimally serious” and not “known or reputable translations[s]” and ones that suffered from a “total lack of reputation,” but all eight. That includes RSV, NRSV, Phillips, and NEB. It’s clear now that Banzoli doesn’t give a fig about what mere scholars would think of his arguments. He has completely self-destructed. No one can possibly take his work seriously anymore, after this astonishing display of absurdly insulated and arrogant anti-intellectualism, or, in common parlance, sheer stupidity.

But since all that matters to Dave is accumulating bad arguments that he can use in his favor, it becomes a true “anything goes”, and even horrible biblical translations that he would never read or use as a reference become an “argument” to use in your favor, when it’s convenient. . . .

As I noted, I use RSV in almost all of my work, and have for many years now. About the only time I use KJV is when copyright issues are involved (usually with a book).

But, after all, what does the Greek say, . . .? . . .

This is precisely, of course, what translators of Bibles are trained for and commissioned to determine!!!

I could note another fifty Catholic translations here without the shameful adulteration of the “easy to deceive” translations that Dave quoted, but since I am not a loafer who has all day free to write articles, I limit myself to challenging you to find in the Catholic Bible Online any translation that favors Dave’s position. . . . 

That’s easy. It would be the RSV-CE [Catholic Edition]: which Catholics accept with only very minimal alterations (like “full of grace” at Lk 1:28; just a few passages). That’s why almost all my books published by Catholic publishers (including my upcoming one next month) use RSV for the Bible passages, or why Scott Hahn’s Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, etc., use it.

(never minding that it’s a gross tampering with the originals). . . . 

Why doesn’t Dave quote these and many other famous Catholic versions in his article, rather than quote a bunch of obscure versions, taken from who knows where, maybe the fifth of hell, versions that nobody knows and which are ridiculed by academics? The reason is obviously because these versions corroborate their faulty and distorted reading of the text, and the serious versions do not. This is the modus operandi that Dave has operated since I started playing with refuting him, which surpasses any sense of the ridiculous. . . . 

Banzoli then sets out to prove that distinguished Catholics, too, believe it was the family of Jesus who thought He was crazy. We know that some of His “brothers” (i.e., non-sibling relatives) did disbelieve in Him, because the Bible says so (and I’ve written about that several times and freely acknowledged it). But the Bible never says specifically that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not believe in Him, let alone think He was crazy. And — lo and behold –, not a single one of the Catholics he cites, states that Mary thought that.

He cites Fr. Bantu Mendonça (source), who refers to Jesus’ “relatives” and never states that Mary thought He was crazy. 0 for 1.

He cites the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (source) who also merely mention “Jesus’ relatives” and not Mary. 0 for 2.

He cites the Sisters of Saint Benedict of Ferdinand (source) who refer to “Jesus’ relatives” and not Mary. If they had implicated Mary herself (as with all these sources), surely Banzoli would be right on that, citing it, too. He wouldn’t have missed the opportunity. 0 for 3.

He cites Catholic Resources for the Bible, from Fr. Felix Just (source), who (no surprise!) mentions the “family” but not Mary in particular. 0 for 4.

He cites Fr. John McKinnon’s website (source), which notes “the family’s criticism” but not Mary’s. 0 for 5.
*
He cites the De La Salle Institute (source), which refers to “Jesus’ family” and not Mary. 0 for 6. But he’s trying so hard, ain’t he? A for effort; E for performance and nonexistent “proof” of what he is seeking to prove.
*
He cites Sacred Space (source) which (can you guess it?) merely mentions “family” and not Mary. 0 for 7.
*
He cites Catholic Daily Readings (source), but they only make note of the concern of “relatives” and not Mary. 0 for 8.
*
He cites São José Parish, and Fr. Luan Marques Domingues (Source); same thing as all the others (again, “relatives” this time). 0 for 9.
*
He cites the National Catholic Education Commission (source). At least this source states that “The family Mark mentions are the mother and brothers of Jesus,” but (importantly) doesn’t state outright that Mary thought Jesus was wacko. 0 for 10. It’s not proven in the text, however it is translated. Often, we generalize and say “Jane’s family are baseball fans.” It doesn’t follow necessarily at all that every single one of them is a baseball fan (it may be that eight or nine out of ten are).
*
I could use my own family as an example. Someone could say “the Armstrongs are very interested in Catholic apologetics” or “. . . in ping pong” [I have a table downstairs and have played all my life] or that we “. . . are political conservatives” — but there are exceptions to all three of these statements. It doesn’t make it wrong to say any of the three things, because it’s understood as a generalization, which admits exceptions.
*
Likewise, if we follow and grant the literal meaning of “his family . . . said, ‘He is out of his mind'” (NIV), it’s still not proof that Mary was included in that opinion. An actual proof of that would be something like, “his mother Mary thought He was crazy, and demon-possessed, and opposed His mission.” That would be clear-cut proof. After all, John tells us that “even his brothers did not believe in him” (7:5). If the Bible can say that, it could (and I say, would) also have included a statement about Mary, were it actually true.
*
But of course there is nothing remotely like that in the New Testament. I submit, then, that it is simply anti-Marian and anti-Catholic bigotry that arrives such a conclusion, with wishful thinking and an attitude of special pleading and eisegesis, since undeniably no undeniable proof in the Bible exists.
*
He cites A Catholic Moment (source), which refers to “some of his relatives” and not to Mary. 0 for 11.
*
He cites “Catholic.Net” (source). It states:

Luke 8, 19-20: The family looks for Jesus. The relatives reach the house where Jesus was staying. Probably, they had come from Nazareth. From there to Capernaum the distance is about 40 kilometres. His Mother was with them. Probably, they did not enter because there were many people, but they sent somebody to tell him: “Your Mother and your brothers are outside and want to see you”. According to the Gospel of Mark, the relatives do not want to see Jesus, they want to take him back home (Mk 3, 32). They thought that Jesus had lost his head (Mk 3, 21).

This mentions “His Mother” but not in the context of Jesus being thought (by whomever!) to be “beside himself” etc. As I contended above, it’s two different incidents being discussed. First, His “family” or “friends” are mentioned, without mentioning Mary. After that, Mary “came” — she wasn’t already there — (Mk 3:31; Lk 8:19) “asking for” Jesus, or “desiring to see” Jesus (Lk 8:20). Again, that’s different from attempting to “seize” Him, etc. So this again proves nothing. It fails because it confuses two different events (Catholics are by no means immune from making lousy biblical arguments, too). 0 for 12.

He cites Fr. Lucas de Paula Almeida (source), who refers to “family” and “relatives” and not to Mary. 0 for 13.

He cites Teachers (source), which mentions “relatives” and not Mary. 0 for 14.

He cites Catholic Information (source), which only mentions “relatives” and not Mary. Do I detect a pattern? 0 for 15.

He cites Saint Francis Xavier Parish (source) and, lo and behold, it refers to “family” and “relatives” and not to Mary. 0 for 16.

As if he hadn’t already thoroughly embarrassed himself, he then trots out Theophylact from the eleventh century, who also (“surprise surprise surprise!”: as Gomer Pyle would say) mentions only “relatives.” 0 for 17

So we’re left with a big giant nothing, zero, zilch, zip; or to express it in Portugese, “ele não provou nada” or “ele é realmente burro ou iludido o suficiente para pensar que provou o que pensou ter provado?”

Yet he croaks, not knowing that he has proven nothing whatsoever of what he hoped to prove, from Catholic sources (how pathetic!):

It’s funny how Dave brags about citing a “Protestant scholar” who runs counter to my position, as if it means a big deal, when I’ve quoted dozens of Catholic authors who run counter to his position . . . 

I cited eight Bible translations — none Catholic, and four highly reputable and respected, that decisively refuted his view (so he attacked them as dishonest idiots). He cited seventeen (not “dozens”, which would be 24 or more) Catholic sources, none of which proved that Mary thought Jesus was crazy. I’m supposed to be impressed by that? Is anyone out there impressed by such a quixotic display? If so, please comment below this blog post. I’d love to interact with your reasoning.

If Dave thinks that the mother of Jesus is the only exception in the group, and that she was the only one there who came with completely contrary intentions to those of the others (and still didn’t stop them from moving forward), it’s up to Dave to prove it. The burden of proof is on him, after we prove that Mary is one of Jesus’ family members who came to arrest him for insanity.

What I have proven is that four reputable, widely-used English translations deny that it is Jesus’ family who thought He was crazy, and assert that it was “the people.” They may be wrong, but they are entitled to the usual respect; not simply idiotic name-calling and a deluded denial that they are important translations and in actuality, “crap” etc., ad nauseam. In other words, it is a legitimate opinion to think in this way. I happen to agree with them, and even without that translation variant (which would settle it as far as Mark 3:21), I submit that there is no ironclad NT proof (as I elaborated upon above) that the Blessed Virgin Mary thought Jesus was crazy.

I can’t absolutely prove that she didn’t think He was crazy from the Bible alone, but neither can Banzoli prove from the same Bible that she did think He was crazy. That’s the whole point. There isn’t enough information to definitively settle it. The claim that she did think so is ultimately an argument from silence or at best a rather weak deduction, not an undeniable, unarguable biblical assertion.

Catholics need not appeal to Catholic Mariology in this regard. Everyone knows we believe (based on other Scripture: Luke 1:28) that she was sinless and immaculately conceived. But the yearned-for proof that anti-Catholics want so badly to throw in Catholics’ faces simply doesn’t exist in the Bible in and of itself, before we even get within a million miles of Catholic dogma.

One way or another, it is clear that it is Dave who knows nothing about epistemology (just as he knows nothing about grammar, textual interpretation, history, logical reasoning or the Bible).

Thanks for reading, folks, and for your patience! Use your own critical faculties and reasoning abilities to determine who is arguing for truth above (or, for that matter, who is even seeking it, rather than having to always be right, no matter who disagrees, or no matter how much absurdity is entailed — lest the sky fall down). I hope and pray that God will bless you and Lucas Banzoli with all good things (Lk 6:28).

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Christ Carrying the Cross, by Anthony van Dyck (1599-1641) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: I address Mary & “Crazy” Jesus. Polemicist Lucas Banzoli absurdly trashed four excellent (non-Catholic) Bible translations to “prove” that she thought her Son was nuts.

 

February 9, 2023

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster (active on and off) for six blogs. He has many videos on YouTube.

This is my 58th refutation of Banzoli’s writings. For almost half a year (5-25-22 to 11-12-22) he didn’t write one single word in reply, because my articles were deemed to be “without exception poor, superficial and weak . . . only a severely cognitively impaired person would be inclined to take” them “seriously.” Despite this childish rationalizing, he found my refutations so “entertaining” that he bravely decided to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.”

He has now replied to me 15 times (the last one dated 2-9-23). I disposed of the main themes of his slanderous insults in several Facebook posts under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page. I plan (by God’s grace) to ignore the insults henceforth, and heartily thank him for these innumerable blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).

Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in blue. Words from past replies of mine to him will be in green.

*****

This is my reply to a portion of Lucas Banzoli’s article, “1ª Timóteo 3:15 ensina que a Igreja Romana é infalível? Refutando o conceito de “Igreja” de Dave Armstrong”  [Does 1 Timothy 3:15 teach that the Roman Church is infallible? Refuting Dave Armstrong’s Concept of the “Church”] (12-26-22), which purports to be a “reply” to my article, “1 Timothy 3:15 = Infallible Church (vs. Lucas Banzoli)” (6-3-22). As usual, Banzoli comprehends almost none of my argumentation, and so — true to form — he belittles what he is unable and/or unwilling to understand, throughout his pathetic screed.

I will concentrate on one aspect of this debate: the Church as the “foundation of the truth.” He didn’t respond at all to my best argument in this regard, which is why I will mostly repeat it here, but it’s well worth nailing down and reiterating this crucial point. Repetition (as long as rational argument is part and parcel of it) is a great teacher. I have added bolding below, for “foundation” as he uses the word; italics are his own throughout:

After distorting as many biblical texts as usual and machine-gunning passages out of context, Dave proceeds to distort the Greek as well. . . . neither of the two Greek words used in 1 Timothy 3:15 mean “foundation,” . . . 

Even if “foundation” were one of the possible meanings of hedraióma, this would not imply that it was the meaning in 1st Timothy 3:15 . . . 

[I]t would not make the slightest sense that Paul would say that the church (that is, Christians) are the “foundation” of the truth, . . . 

To say that an institution like this is the very foundation of truth, . . . is a crime against humanity. . . . 

[I]f the Church is not the “foundation” of the truth, as if the truth were dependent on the Church, what is it anyway? It is the “pillar” or “pillar” of truth, built upon the truth, not the truth in it. . . . 

Dave . . . fails miserably to prove . . . that the text speaks of being the “foundation” of the truth, and not a “pillar” or support to it. . . . he completely reverses the meaning and purpose of the Pauline text, turning a plain and simple message about Christians being truth-keepers into a burlesque message about a Roman institution being infallible and above all. . . . 

[E]xegesis is not done by joining disconnected verses at will. With that same logic, we could take any other text where the word “foundation” appears and relate it to 1st Timothy 3:15, which would obviously be stupid as well as begging the question (for wanting to inculcate this meaning into the text rather than to extract it from it). . . . 

[T]he foundation itself can be none other than Jesus, who is the very “way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6), sharing no space with anyone else. . . . 

1st Timothy 3:15 does not speak of “foundation” . . . 

[B]oth Peter and James and John are called pillars (exactly what I argue based on 1 Timothy 3:15), not foundation (as Dave believes, removing Jesus from his post as sole foundation). As any child knows, and maybe even a baby, a pillar is not the foundation, but it is on the foundation (because the foundation is Christ, not themselves). . . . 

Banzoli goes round and round, almost drowning in his own voluminous, ever-present verbal diarrhea. What he never did throughout his entire ridiculous rant, was address one of my central, and most effective arguments. How is it that we best determine what word (translation of a Hebrew or Greek word) is proper in any specific Bible passage? Well, a great and relatively easy way to do that is to consult the many hundreds of linguists and Bible scholars who take part in the translation process of new versions of the Bible. I made this argument, but he utterly ignored it (I don’t blame him; he operates with the mentality of “if you can’t overcome an argument, just pretend that it doesn’t exist!”).

47 scholars translated the famous King James Version (KJV, 1611). The RSV, the most well-known revision of the KJV, and the Bible that I use, was translated by 32 scholars in conjunction with representatives from fifty denominations. The New International Version (NIV) was produced by fifteen scholars. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) — the version I used when I first read the Bible — was produced by more than twenty linguists. Etc., etc.

These people know what they’re doing. They’re actually scholars, not merely amateur ranters and ravers and anti-Catholic polemicists like Banzoli, who can’t even manage to get a book published by an actual publisher outside of himself, and so is consigned to self-publishing only.

Lucas falsely claimed in his original paper on the topic (not this latest one) that none of them [Bible translations] has the sense of ‘foundation’ (as some adulterated Catholic translations render it)”. I regret to inform him (but I’m happy to inform my readers) that this is a glaring falsehood, and it is proven not just by Catholic translations (in English), but by (overwhelmingly) non-Catholic Bibles, which translate hedraíōma as follows (Catholic Bibles in green) — including 24 of them that chose the rendering of foundation or foundation-stone:

foundation (NIV, NLT, Amplified, CSB, Holman, CEV, ISV, LSV, NAB, Young’s Literal, Berean Study, Lamsa, EHV, EXB, GW, Phillips, MEV, NOG, NTE, TLV, Goodspeed, Knox, Williams)

foundation-stone (Weymouth)

buttress (ESV, Mounce, Barclay)

ground (KJV, NKJV, ASV, Douay-Rheims, WEB, AKJV, ERV, Webster, Geneva, Bishop’s Bible, Coverdale, Tyndale, BRG, Good News, NMB, RGT)

bulwark (NET, NRSV, NCB, RSV, NEB, REB, Moffatt, Kleist & Lilly)

base (Darby, Smith’s Literal, Literal Emphasis, JUB)

[see web pages with most of these translations written out: one / two]

So much for Lucas’ groundless argument (no pun intended) . . .

All of this was utterly ignored in Banzoli’s purported “reply.” He had desperately written in his original article:

Therefore, the meaning of the text is not that the truth is subject or dependent on the Church, but the opposite. As the pillar is dependent on the foundation, the Church is dependent on the truth. The foundation (truth) comes first, and the pillar (Church) comes later. The Church, therefore, has the role of announcing this truth, not manipulating that truth, as if whatever the Church said was true for the sole reason that the Church said it.

The text says the exact opposite of what Lucas argues, as shown above (from actual scholars). Far from the Church being “dependent on the truth”, The Bible says it is the foundation or ground or base of the truth: exactly what we Catholics are saying. It doesn’t follow that the Bible is not that (either/or reasoning). But the Church is, along with or alongside the Bible: precisely as in the Catholic rule of faith. This doesn’t make the Church inspired; only infallible. And that is quite enough to destroy sola Scriptura as a supposed biblical principle and rule of faith.

The heart of the Catholic argument is not the word stulos, but the word hedraíōma, as shown. First Lucas defines it wrongly, and then ignores it as if it isn’t there. But the meaning is crystal-clear; couldn’t be more clear than it is!

. . . the Church, which is not a “foundation” of the truth, but a pillar, . . . The Bible is not really the pillar of truth, because it is much more than a pillar. It is not like a pillar (which depends on something), but the foundation, the truth itself.

The Church also is the foundation (or ground or base or bulwark) of “the truth”: as shown above. Lucas is foolishly denying what ought to be right in front of his face. I know it’s difficult to have one’s cherished (but false) belief crushed. But we all have to be strong enough to endure correction from the Bible. We can’t fight against it. That won’t do us any good at all.

For those who haven’t yet read it, here is my most concise presentation of the “Catholic argument” from 1 Timothy 3:15, from my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (Catholic Answers Press, 2012, pp. 104-107, #82):

Pillars and foundations support things and prevent them from collapsing. To be a “bulwark” of the truth, means to be a “safety net” against truth turning into falsity. If the Church could err, it could not be what Scripture says it is. God’s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus’ parable. For this passage of Scripture to be true, the Church could not err — it must be infallible. A similar passage may cast further light on 1 Timothy 3:15:

Ephesians 2:19-21 . . . you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;

1 Timothy 3:15 defines “household of God” as “the church of the living God.” Therefore, we know that Ephesians 2:19-21 is also referring to the Church, even though that word is not present. Here the Church’s own “foundation” is “the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” The foundation of the Church itself is Jesus and apostles and prophets.

Prophets spoke “in the name of the Lord” (1 Chron 21:19; 2 Chron 33:18; Jer 26:9), and commonly introduced their utterances with “thus says the Lord” (Is 10:24; Jer 4:3; 26:4; Ezek 13:8; Amos 3:11-12; and many more). They spoke the “word of the Lord” (Is 1:10; 38:4; Jer 1:2; 13:3, 8; 14:1; Ezek 13:1-2; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jon 1:1; Mic 1:1, et cetera). These communications cannot contain any untruths insofar as they truly originate from God, with the prophet serving as a spokesman or intermediary of God (Jer 2:2; 26:8; Ezek 11:5; Zech 1:6; and many more). Likewise, apostles proclaimed truth unmixed with error (1 Cor 2:7-13; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11-14; 2 Pet 1:12-21).

Does this foundation have any faults or cracks? Since Jesus is the cornerstone, he can hardly be a faulty foundation. Neither can the apostles or prophets err when teaching the inspired gospel message or proclaiming God’s word. In the way that apostles and prophets are infallible, so is the Church set up by our Lord Jesus Christ. We ourselves (all Christians) are incorporated into the Church (following the metaphor), on top of the foundation.

1 Peter 2:4-9 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; [5] and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. [6] For it stands in scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.” [7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” [8] and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. [9] But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (cf. Isa 28:16)

Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church. The Church is also more than once even identified with Jesus himself, by being called his “Body” (Acts 9:5 cf. with 22:4 and 26:11; 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 4:12; 5:23, 30; Col 1:24). That the Church is so intimately connected with Jesus, who is infallible, is itself a strong argument that the Church is also infallible and without error.

Therefore, the Church is built on the foundation of Jesus (perfect in all knowledge), and the prophets and apostles (who spoke infallible truth, often recorded in inspired, infallible Scripture). Moreover, it is the very “Body of Christ.” It stands to reason that the Church herself is infallible, by the same token. In the Bible, nowhere is truth presented as anything less than pure truth, unmixed with error. That was certainly how Paul conceived his own “tradition” that he received and passed down.

Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar be something less than total truth (since truth itself contains no falsehoods, untruths, lies, or errors)? It cannot. It is impossible. It is a straightforward matter of logic and plain observation. A stream cannot rise above its source. What is built upon a foundation cannot be greater than the foundation. If it were, the whole structure would collapse.

If an elephant stood on the shoulders of a man as its foundation, that foundation would collapse. The base of a skyscraper has to hold the weight above it. The foundations of a suspension bridge over a river have to be strong enough to support that bridge.

Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the foundation of truth, the Church must be infallible, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser than that which is built upon it. And since there is another infallible authority apart from Scripture, sola scriptura must be false.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Summary: 1 Timothy 3:15 proves that the Church = foundation of the truth, and is infallible and indefectible (also disproving sola Scriptura). Banzoli futilely ignores it.

***


Browse Our Archives